[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.01 MB, 2349x1575, fast-food1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005426 No.7005426 [Reply] [Original]

How come some people easily become fat while others easily stay thin?

Usually people talk about thin people having fast metabolism but that doesn't make any sense.

What happens to the calories from the food? Say for example 2 people with same weight but fast and slow metabolism start eating every day 2500 calories worth of food. One month later the slow metabolism person has gained 10 kilos while the fast metabolism person stayed the same weight. Why?

Where did the food that turned to fat in slow metabolism person go? Did it go to waste? Does that mean that slow metabolism fat people are actually more efficient with regards to food consumption and therefore more evolutionarily advanced?

>> No.7005429

One of them used more energy while the other secretly ate snickers bars.

>> No.7005431

>>7005426
I don't feel like explaining it right now, but you are wrong and it is much more complicated than you think

>> No.7005447

>>7005426
Metabolism refers to the base rate at which energy is used. People with fast metabolism use up all the energy before it can be stored, which is why it is difficult for them to gain weight and even muscle. People with low metabolism don't use up all the energy and thus have to store it. It doesn't make sense to say one is more evolutionary "advanced" when we are talking about individuals rather than populations and storing too much energy can be just as bad or worse than using it all up.

>> No.7005455

There are fluctuations in the metabolic rates for different people, which can then vary based on various hormone levels, but these differences between individuals do not substitute the massive difference in their weight gain.

For 99.5% of cases it is down to caloric intake and lifestyle, the other .5% is down to hormonal imbalances and other medical conditions.
When you overeat your whole life it doesn't seem like you eat that much, and when you undereat your whole life it doesn't seem that little.

Then you get into a lot of nutritional science territory where you have foods dense in calories etc etc

>> No.7005472

>>7005426
The difference between people with low/high metabolism is actually tiny (for the most part. There are real metabolism illnesses, but those usually have much more serious side effects then just looking a little thinner). People just mistake weird eating habits and anecdotal knowledge with that. Fat people are fat because they grew up in an environment of shitty food and shitty food education. It's mainly a psychological/sociological issue, which gained momentum now that fat people are even encouraged.

>> No.7005477

>>7005426
Some people enjoy eating and will eat for pleasure, either in excessive quantities or just in excessively caloric food.

Some people don't particularly enjoy eating and while when they get hungry they will pick tasty food that might have a few extra calories, they won't eat frequently enough in high enough volume to make a difference.

The situation in your OP is the fantasy of a fatty with a persecution complex.

>> No.7005504

>>7005477
I enjoy eating a lot and I have a fast metabolism. Why are you denying well known biochem?

>> No.7005506

>>7005477
or maybe the result of permanent lies.

I've been slightly overweight for a long time, and trust me when I say it's painful to see your friends eat junk food whenever they can and you're trying your best to hold to your 3 meals per day. Nutrition is all lies and in the end it all boils down to calory intake.
People get lied to when they are told about how many meals they should eat, what they should eat and whatnot, and that's where the frustration comes from.

>> No.7005508

>>7005504
>I enjoy eating a lot
Is relative. What you find a lot a lot of people find to be nothing at all.
If you actually start to count calories and generate real data about what you eat you'll find out that the "slow metaboliser" down the street eats 4000kcal a normal day whereas you may get to 2500kcal when you stuff your face with pizza.

>> No.7005510

>>7005477
>everyone has the exact same caloric requirements

Yeah, you're retarded.

>> No.7005519

>>7005508
Yes it's relative. For instance, I know for a fact that I eat more than some of my overweight friends. If you actually decide to learn some chemistry or biology instead of just confirming your preconceived notions, you will find plenty of empirical research showing different metabolisms exist and are significant in weight regulation.

>> No.7005524

>>7005504
I'm not overweight (165 lbs, 6'1). I went to a concert a few months ago with some friends, two (female) of them are pretty overweight. On our way home we went to McDonalds. I haven't eaten anything for like 9 hours, so I bought myself a whole menu (bigmac, coke, fries), and it was the only thing I've eaten at McDonalds in ages. The two overweight chicks seriously bought themselves salads. They looked over to me and said "Oh some people just can eat anything".

The thing is, those two chicks stick together all the time and don't even notice that they have eaten all kinds of shit the whole time: When we were waiting at the station in the afternoon they bought a latte (with cookie!), when we were on our way to the concert hall they bought a sub ("healthy") and they brought sweets with them that they ate on the train. So all in all, they have probably eaten a LOT more than my big mac menu. It's some sort of delusion. People are just incapable of objectively judging their food intake. It just happens so quick.

>> No.7005525

>>7005519
>I know for a fact that I eat more than some of my overweight friends.
Show me the data tables you compiled.
No data?
So you know for a opinion that someone you see for a few hours a day occasionally eats more than you. Then he goes home and stuff himself with cake and chocolate.

>> No.7005533

>>7005426
>Say for example 2 people with same weight but fast and slow metabolism start eating every day 2500 calories worth of food. One month later the slow metabolism person has gained 10 kilos while the fast metabolism person stayed the same weight.
This is a terrible example. Nobody is going to gain 10 kilograms of fat in a month eating only 2500 calories worth of food. They'd have to have been dehydrated or something at the start.

>Where did the food that turned to fat in slow metabolism person go?
Toward increased physical and mental activity and maintaining a higher body temperature.

>Does that mean that slow metabolism fat people are actually more efficient with regards to food consumption and therefore more evolutionarily advanced?
Totally healthy people don't get seriously obese because their appetite and metabolism are properly regulated. If they start eating enough that they would get fat, they start burning more energy and they lose their desire for food until they've used it up.

Putting excessive amounts of fat on the body is disadvantageous. It's not normal for a person to just keep getting fatter and fatter and fatter.

>> No.7005534

>>7005525
Are you implying that I can't know I eat more than someone else when I live with them?

OK, so where is your data for your theory that "For 99.5% of cases it is down to caloric intake and lifestyle, the other .5% is down to hormonal imbalances and other medical conditions."

>> No.7005536
File: 331 KB, 920x772, 1417787084953.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005536

>>7005519
I'm a med student.

If someone is obese they eat too much and exercise too little.
It's not fucking rocket science, it's just that people are so fucking good at decieving themself, so they'll cling to any bullshit explanation that shifts blame away from themself.

It's the same with alcoholics, they may be dying of liver failure while denying that they had an alcohol problem. Ask their wife/husband or children and a oh well, he drank 3 bottles of wine on an average day, you confront him with it and no his wife and children are lying.

>> No.7005538

>>7005534
So 99.5%..

>> No.7005539

>>7005534
>Are you implying that I can't know I eat more than someone else when I live with them?
Yes.

He eats a little when you're looking because he already stuffed himself with fast food earlier in the day.

>> No.7005541

>>7005536
>I'm a med student.
You mean "premed", right? Or a med student in some country that nobody wants a doctor from?

If you actually do end up being a doctor, you're going to be a terrible one.

>If someone is obese they eat too much and exercise too little.
The fact that it's possible through organization and discipline to overcome a tendency toward obesity doesn't explain why most people make no special effort to regulate their weight yet don't get fat, or why obesity is increasing.

>> No.7005545

>>7005541
>If you actually do end up being a doctor, you're going to be a terrible one.
Yes, because he doesn't tell people the bullshit they want to hear. People usually listen better to people saying nice things to them.

>> No.7005547

>>7005536
>If someone is obese they eat too much and exercise too little.
So? What OP was asking is why some people EASILY stay fat while others EASILY stay thin. No one is saying that eating a lot and not exercising will not make you fat, or that people don't deceive themselves into thinking they eat less than they do. None of this allows you to deny the fact that there are differences in metabolism that significantly contribute to weight regulation. A study only on obese people will just show you that obese people have a metabolic rate expected by the formula predicting metabolic rate. It doesn't show that obese people have the same metabolic rate as thin people.

>> No.7005548

>>7005541
>If you actually do end up being a doctor, you're going to be a terrible one.
Boohooo, he told me I'm fat and eat too much. It really is muh genetics, I'm a dumbass layman but I know it's muh genetics, it can't be my own fault. Bohoo what a terrible doctor.

I think you're actually the fat one.

>You mean "premed", right?
We don't have that in europe you twat.

>> No.7005549

>>7005538
So where's the data showing 99.5%...?

>>7005539
He doesn't. You're an idiot.

>> No.7005551

>>7005549
>He doesn't.
How do you know? Do you check his expenses? Do you stalk him around the clock?

Or maybe you have some body dysmorphic mental disorder and just believes you're thin when in fact you're twice as fat as your friend.

>> No.7005555

Are there people itt who are actually denying that different people have different metabolisms? Seriously?

I can't wait for you idiots to get fat as fuck by the time you're 30 because you still eat the same as you did when you were a teenager.

>> No.7005556

>>7005426
I eat probably 2500 - 3500 calories daily, usually in a large lunch + dinner with some snacking. I spend most of my time sitting down. I weigh 240lb 6'. 2500 calories doesn't seem like a whole lot to me, I can easily eat upwards of 2k in one sitting if I have a large lunch or dinner. am I a fatty /sci/

>> No.7005560

>>7005551
How do you know? Are you psychic? You're very very stupid if you think you know more about my friends than me. You have a big problem with making assumptions about people you've never met. It just makes you look unintelligent, especially when you're wrong.

>> No.7005566

>>7005548
>>You mean "premed", right?
>We don't have that in europe you twat.
Ah, so you're from one of those places where anyone can be a "med student" just by getting non-humiliating grades in high school and deciding to be one.

See, saying you're a "med student" in America impresses people, because they do most of the weeding out before they let people into the program. You have to get a degree first, then you have to pass through an extremely selective application process. The people who become med students this way mostly become doctors.

Clearly, where you are, it's no mark of distinction. You're neither educated to a significant degree yet, nor have you passed a stringent selective process, which explains why you'd be hanging around on 4chan shouting ignorant opinions like an excited teenager.

You're never going to be a doctor.

>> No.7005568

>>7005555
>30 because you still eat the same as you did when you were a teenager.
That have more to do with changed lifestyle than changed metabolism. But keep making excuses for why you're fat.

>> No.7005572

>>7005556
Shit, I started thinking I was on /fit/ and forgot this was /sci/

>> No.7005574

>>7005566
Dude, Europe is not a bunch of third world countries. Studying medicine in Europe is just as hard as in America, with the tiny difference that you don't have to pay off your debts for the rest of your life. Get some perspective.

>> No.7005580

>>7005568

1) No it doesn't.
2) I'm not fat. But I would be if I ate the same amount, even though I get more exercise now.
3) You're retarded.

>> No.7005584

>>7005574
Dude, medical school in Europe is done right after secondary education. That means you are basically a freshman retard. In the United States, medical school requires a Bachelors degree.

>> No.7005586

>>7005566
>You're never going to be a doctor.
I'm on my last year.

>Clearly, where you are, it's no mark of distinction.
Everyone looks up to doctors no matter where on earth you are and the schools always have a lot of applicants and competition to get in.

>> No.7005587

>>7005584
>I have a bachelor degree in womens studies, I'm now so much more fit to become a doctor!

>> No.7005589

>>7005587
>I keep making idiotic and wrong assumptions about people in my quest to convince people that I'm an intelligent and mature medical student!

>> No.7005590

>>7005589
>I'm jealous and not a medical student

>> No.7005591

>>7005574
>Studying medicine in Europe is just as hard as in America
In America, you need a bachelor's degree before you can even apply to med school, so no. In Europe you can be "studying medicine" while working at a level that would be considered "preparing to possibly study medicine" in America.

Don't come in here and try to pull that "I'm a med student" garbage, when it's really the equivalent of "I'm a first-year bio student" to the people you're talking to.

It's like saying, "I'm a PhD candidate", when you're a kid thinking that maybe someday you'd like to get a PhD.

>> No.7005592

>>7005587
>I completed high school, I'm now so much more fit to become a doctor!

>> No.7005603

Sedentary vs. active lifestyle. Some people just move as little as possible and don't like things that feel exhausting. It's the small things that ultimately sum up.

I don't have a source, but there was a study recently that recorded the amount of movement made by people in an office environment, and it was found that even slightly overweight people tended to move much less.

>> No.7005605

>>7005586
Yeah, that's right. That's why you scream and swear on 4chan like furious child. You're actually just about to become a doctor. A really real one, who everyone will respect.

>> No.7005614

>>7005605
Like all this ad hominem somehow proved your point lol. Idiot.

>> No.7005620
File: 110 KB, 680x497, Americans_5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005620

>Fatsos arguing against conservation of energy

M-m-muh metabolism

>> No.7005625

>>7005620

No one is arguing against conservation of energy. Please tell me you're joking.

>> No.7005632

>>7005625
Well, where does the energy go in people with fast metabolism where it can't go in people with slow metabolism?

>> No.7005634

>>7005605
>Bohoo you ruined my prestigefull delusions of doctors
Too bad. Maybe I can prescribe some topical ointment to relieve that butthurt.

>> No.7005637

My 15 year old nephew eats like garbage and is skinny as fuck. He eats chips, soda, top ramen, and sweets.

>> No.7005640

>>7005625
Energy in vs energy out
Energy in is pretty much the same on everyone outside of severe actual diseases, which leaves the amount you eat only significant factor
Energy out is a sum of passive and active consumption, passive portion varies a bit from human to human larger people consume more energy naturally, this also means that the fatter you get the higher your base energy consumption rises. The variations are pretty insignificant compared to active portions though which is exercise, manual labor and that sort of thing.

Everyone who says
>muh hormones
Is either delusional or thinks conservation of energy doesn't apply to them

>> No.7005641

>>7005637

Oh, all he does is play video games. He never leaves his room.

>> No.7005643

>>7005641
Lets start force feeding him and use his body as a quantum batter because by the description that's where the energy is going.

>> No.7005646

>>7005614
>>>I, a completely anonymous person on the internet, am actually a final-year med student, and therefore you should accept my assertions without question.
>>Your behavior here has not been consistent with the level of maturity and decorum one would expect from a final-year med student, so that seems unlikely.
>That's an ad hominem argument!
You have no idea what an actual "ad hominem" is.

Arguing that the position is necessarily wrong as a consequence of facts about its supporter, which do not bear on the position itself, is the ad hominem logical fallacy. It is actually very rare for an explicitly stated argument to be an ad hominem argument, since it's so self-evidently invalid, but the ad hominem fallacy is something you have to guard against in implicit reasoning.

Arguing that the supporter is bad in some way because of the position he's taking and the way he's defending it is not an ad hominem.

>> No.7005650

>>7005641
He's growing and haven't had enought time to get fat yet.

>> No.7005655

Why is it always a pissing contest with Americans?

A bachelors degree doesn't make you magically more suited for being a doctor.
I'd go as far as to say that it's way harder to become a doctor in Germany than it is in the USA.
Also lmaoing at that one retard claiming that no country other than the US produces good doctors.

>> No.7005657
File: 496 KB, 500x280, AF3J5.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005657

>>7005634
after that he should really apply some cold water to that burn

>> No.7005661

>>7005646
Shut up already, nobody cares, the same thing has been said a bazillion times already. Show some convincing proof that non-symptomatic differences in BMR can cause obesity and stop spreading baseless assumptions about European education.

>> No.7005662

>>7005632
It gets spent, it goes out. This is like looking at two motors and asking where the energy in the less efficient motor goes if they both take the same amount of fuel.

>> No.7005664

>>7005632

It can go lots of places. Higher body temperature is one. Or just out their butts, undigested.

"Energy in, energy out" is something which is trivially true, but that doesn't mean the situation is simple.

>> No.7005666

>>7005664
>Higher body temperature is one.
Not observed and not plausible.
>Or just out their butts, undigested.
Not observed and not plausible.

>> No.7005668

>>7005662
One of them heats up
All humans stay at 37

>> No.7005669

>>7005426
>Where did the food that turned to fat in slow metabolism person go?

it never got eaten in the first place.


with these hungry skeletons who claim "i eat all the time and can't gain any weight!" it's the same as fatties claiming "i eat very little but can't lose weigth!"

the skeleton vastly overestimates his intake while the fatty vastly underestimates it.
i know plenty of these skeleton people. "yeah man i'm eating heaps of junk food all the time and never gain weight!" they say. when i stayed with one for a week, he had one meal a day plus snacks, that's it. usually a frozen pizza and a few candy bars over the day, maybe a can of soda. not even close to eating a lot.

>> No.7005674

>>7005640
>Energy in is pretty much the same on everyone outside of severe actual diseases
Wrong, basal metabolic rate among normal adults varies between 1000 and 2500 kcal per day.

>> No.7005676

>>7005669
>Skeleton xD
It's called anorexia.

>> No.7005677

>>7005666

Uh, yes it is. You think every human generates the same amount of heart? You think every human had the exact same gut flora?

>> No.7005678

>>7005677
>heart

>> No.7005679

>>7005534
>Are you implying that I can't know I eat more than someone else when I live with them?

alcoholics often successfully hide their drinking from family they live with. for months or even years.

unless you literally stick to your buddy 24/7 he's gonna feast on snacks while you're not looking.

>> No.7005680

>>7005674
[citation needed]

>> No.7005681

>>7005676
not everyone who doesn't eat much is anorexic

>> No.7005683

>>7005677
>some humans just naturally have 45 body heat, we fatsos just have a slow metabolism and 25 average body heat
:^)

>> No.7005685

>>7005674
>Wrong, basal metabolic rate among normal adults varies between 1000 and 2500 kcal per day.
Maybe if you compare a 5' woman with a body builder. But that's not what we are talking about. We compare people of same size, same age and same build. And no, they don't vary that much.

>>7005677
Yes, on average they all generate the same amount of heat. And no, unless you have health problems your shit doesn't magically contain undigested food.

>> No.7005686

>>7005668
If you measure the heat output from a person with high metabolism vs a person with low metabolism in a controlled environment, you will see more heat from the high metabolism. Body temperature is not a measure of heat output. Again, this is basic biochemistry that you're denying. It's sort of like saying evolution is wrong because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

>> No.7005687

>>7005680
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280423
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15674765

>> No.7005688

>>7005686
Mind putting some sources on that claim, seems you have some study or something since your talking of this "controlled environment"

>> No.7005689

>>7005547
>What OP was asking is why some people EASILY stay fat while others EASILY stay thin.

habits. that's it.
if you're used to eating shitty food multiple times a day because that's what your parents did all the time when you grew up, then that's normal to you. you adapted to eating large quantities of food - your throughput is increased, your stomach is enlarged, you feel hungry more easily and its harder to get sated or even feel full. if you grow up into this lifestyle, you will regard it as the norm, and so will your body. thus it's extremely easy to keep going back to it.

when you're raised on healthy eating habits, you adapt to that. you dont feel hungry very fast, you feel full very easily.

>> No.7005690

>>7005685

Please google "gut flora obesity"

>> No.7005692

>>7005685
Nope, even people with the same sex and the same lean body mass vary significantly (up to 30% difference) . See the second study here >>7005687

>> No.7005693

>>7005681
What does skeleton mean, then?

>> No.7005694

>>7005688
Basal metabolic rate is measured through calorimetric measurement of the body's thermogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

>> No.7005696

>>7005687
>>7005692

none of your citations even mentions a single kcal value. there is nothing in there that confirms your ridiculous "1000 - 2500 variance" claim.

>> No.7005698

>>7005696
Are you retarded? Did you just read the abstract and not the actual papers? Get the fuck out.

>> No.7005700
File: 159 KB, 564x692, 1420837114508.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005700

>>7005541
>>7005566
>>7005605
>>7005646
>this delusional buttmad fatass

>> No.7005704

>>7005700
Whoa, nice argument. Show it to your mom; she will be proud.

>> No.7005708
File: 3.45 MB, 290x129, H5B7KNF.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005708

>>7005704
she'll always be proud as long as my overall bodyshape resembles a human

>> No.7005710

>>7005698
>One hundred fifty adults (n = 107 women, 43 men) aged between 21 and 64 y and having a body mass index (in kg/m2) in the range of 16.7–49.3 were recruited
>The mean BMR of all subjects was 6279 kJ/d. The minimum was 4301 kJ/d and the maximum was 10 455 kJ/d.

this is what you base your claims on?
subjects that vary in bmr between 17 and fucking 49?

>> No.7005716

>>7005710
*vary in bmi

>> No.7005721

>>7005710
What exactly is the problem? I'm glad you at least read the fucking paper, fucktard.

>> No.7005724

>>7005710
note that in this case the people with the much higher metabolic requirements are the ones who are obese and have much more body mass to support, they eat so much they are fatter in spite of this

>> No.7005726

>>7005708
I've been up there and it really is super narrow. But beautiful, really beautiful.

>> No.7005729

>>7005721
>What exactly is the problem?

dude said
>Maybe if you compare a 5' woman with a body builder. But that's not what we are talking about. We compare people of same size, same age and same build.

your study has fuckall to do with that. people with bmi differences of fucking 30 or more in no way qualify as 'same size' or 'same build'

>> No.7005733

>>7005687
First link pretty much already tells how small the effect is compared to just eating or moving a lot.
Of all the variation only 26% was unexplained (not to metion how the variation is only 1/5th from the average to begin with), which accounts for the
>muh metabolism.
and other effects.
This basically means that when you pick 2 similar built people the effect of hormones is small.
Not to mention how fat also have higher metabolism based solely on body size.

Then you compare it to the fact that fat people can eat easily 4 or 5 times as much food than a similarly build skinny person.
Or how a athletic person can consume several times the calories of inactive person.

>> No.7005734

>>7005729
To which I replied, read the second paper. God damn, why do I have to read simple sentences for you faggots?

>> No.7005737

>>7005734
>To which I replied, read the second paper
>that's behind a paywall though :^)

>> No.7005739

>>7005721
>What exactly is the problem?
The range is wide because they have fatties and skeletons mixed.
The skeletons will be the ones with low BMR and the fatties the one with high BMR.

Your argument suggests the low BMR is causing the high BMI and vice versa which is misleading.

>> No.7005742

>>7005733
>First link pretty much already tells how small the effect is compared to just eating or moving a lot.
>Of all the variation only 26% was unexplained (not to metion how the variation is only 1/5th from the average to begin with), which accounts for the
So obviously you don't understand what you're reading since you are confusing the fact that 26% of the metabolic rate is unexplained with the claim that 26% of weight gain can be explained by metabolism. Jesus Christ, learn how to read. This study is not even that verbose.

>> No.7005745

>>7005737
If you haven't been to university or are not working in one you shouldn't be in this board.

>> No.7005749

>>7005745
Outside of university networks I can't access these files either. And I'm at home atm.

>> No.7005753

>>7005739
>The range is wide because they have fatties and skeletons mixed.
That's the point though. People with different weights have different metabolic rates. Are you incapable of parsing a simple argument?

>Your argument suggests the low BMR is causing the high BMI and vice versa which is misleading.
No. Someone can have high BMI and high metabolism if they eat a lot and don't exercise. My argument is explaining why some people don't gain weight even without exercise or dieting. This is because of high metabolism.

>> No.7005754

>>7005742
Obviously more long term weight gain accumulates due to the difference in metabolism, if you continue eating 500 calories a day over your base metabolic rate for years you are going to gain hundreds of pounds no matter what that rate started out as.

A small metabolic difference multiplied by the same unhealthy lifestyle produces a major long term disparity in weight, that is.

>> No.7005756

>>7005742
>reading comprehension

No I mean that you take a say base 2000 build guy
Someone with high metabolism could have about 2500 consumption (25% higher, which is unlikely to be the case as the unaccounted stat isn't this one dimensional)
Meanwhile the 2500 guy could pretty much be a couch potato american which means total usage of 3000 with trips to the fridge and consumption of say 6000
the 2000 guy might instead be an athlete consuming 4000 a day and eating 3500 and losing weight

>> No.7005757

>>7005745
>everybody who doesn't study and live in america should leave this board!

>> No.7005763

>>7005756
And to continue in reality it's the other way around, the pizza guy will in fact end up with higher base consumption as his body weight rises, meanwhile the other guy's consumption drops as he loses weight.

>> No.7005764

>>7005749
>Outside of university networks I can't access these files either. And I'm at home atm.
This study reported that the top 5% of BMRs metabolize energy 28%-32% faster than the bottom 5% of BMRs.

>> No.7005766

>>7005757
I gladly leave. The rest can do their bubblegum science from Americans for Americans.

Good luck, fatties.

>> No.7005768

>>7005754
>Obviously more long term weight gain accumulates due to the difference in metabolism, if you continue eating 500 calories a day over your base metabolic rate for years you are going to gain hundreds of pounds no matter what that rate started out as.
>A small metabolic difference multiplied by the same unhealthy lifestyle produces a major long term disparity in weight, that is.
So what? Do you even understand what this thread is about? Again, learn how to read.

>> No.7005770
File: 361 KB, 400x528, 1409527958806.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005770

>>7005766

>> No.7005771

>>7005757
I'm sorry your shitty university does not give you access to scientific papers. Truly sorry. But it's not my problem and I'm happy to see you take your ball and go home.

>> No.7005773

>>7005661
>Show some convincing proof that non-symptomatic differences in BMR can cause obesity
See, this right here is how you make a logical fallacy.

You take a general idea (some difference of metabolism), equate it to something very specific ("non-symptomatic differences in BMR"), and then you imply that inability to produce convincing proof of the very specific thing should be taken as a disproof of the general thing, and a justification of your previous authoritative declarations against it.

I wish I could say this was not reasoning like a doctor, but unfortunately, MDs are not generally very good at reasoning. Sharp memories, quick ability to recognize patterns, but not generally good at grinding through difficult problems to sound conclusions.

Metabolism is not reduceable to "basal metabolic rate", nor is it truly separable from appetite, urge to move the body, energy level, or proper mental function.

If your body tends to turn extra food into energetic activity, and makes you feel like fidgeting, pacing, choosing to walk rather than drive, or choosing to go out dancing rather than watching a movie, that can reasonably be described as having a "fast metabolism". It doesn't matter whether gross bodily movements are involved. It only matters that increased calorie intake promotes increased calorie consumption.

Basal metabolic rate is an arbitrary and ill-defined concept of little relevance, like body mass index, both of which are only used in the study of obesity because they're easy to measure and therefore allow researchers to pretend that they have reached meaningful conclusions without putting in the real effort necessary to do so.

>> No.7005774

>>7005524
You still probably took in more calories that one day because McDonald's is crazy, but your point remains valid.

>> No.7005777
File: 474 KB, 700x394, amerigans.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005777

>>7005764
O wow, it's even lower result than the other one.
From the example average body stated here
>>7005756
2000 means that the TOP metabolizers only go as high 2320
>totally that 16% that separates me from average, not this big mac i'm eating right now.

>> No.7005783

>>7005773
>walk rather than drive, choosing to go out dancing rather than watching a movie, that can reasonably be described as having a "fast metabolism".
So the whole
>muh metabolism
from fatsos is just a code word of being lazy?

>> No.7005784

>>7005777
>O wow, it's even lower result than the other one.
The first one doesn't even calculate that metric. I find it funny that Europeans are shitting up this thread with Murrica memes while showing a complete inability to read a paper (ironically from a Scottish study) correctly. Unfortunately, illiteracy is not as easy to make fun of on an imageboard as obesity.

>> No.7005786

>>7005783
basically true

>> No.7005787

>>7005773
>I'm fat and it's not my fault. Everyone else is dumb, wrong or both.

>> No.7005789

>>7005756
No, I mean that literally has nothing to do with the study you claimed to have read. kek.

>> No.7005792

>>7005783
Actually what you just read is completely inaccurate, since BASAL metabolic rate refers to the calories spent while resting. It explicitly has nothing to do with how active you are.

>> No.7005794

>>7005784
nigger you got these papers straight from the wikipedia article on bmr, and the 'conclusions' you spout are direct quotes from the article.

>> No.7005795

>>7005749
>2015
>A university which does not offer VPN exists

Just out of curiosity, are you in Mongolia?

>> No.7005796

>>7005794
Retard, the wikipedia article summarizes the main point of the paper relating to BMR.

>> No.7005797

>>7005768
So it's still your fault you're fat, fatty, that's the point I'm making.

>> No.7005798

>>7005545
>>7005548
You're right, he doesn't make the bullshit and lies he tells nice at all.

>> No.7005800

>>7005795
They do offer VPN, but I'm too lazy to set it up.

>> No.7005802

Everybody here knows that most fat people are fat because they eat too much and move too little. Does that mean we can't have a single conversation about metabolism?

>> No.7005803

>>7005797
I'm actually in the normal range of BMIs and I was underweight for much of my childhood. The point you're making seems to be that you're retarded.

>> No.7005809

>>7005802
That's not why people are fat. But, yes, this thread is what happens when you ask a bunch of thin people to talk about fat people, just like "diabetes is caused by eating too much food" is what happens when you get thin scientists to pretend they know shit about fat people. All us thin people are inherently biased against science on this subject.

>> No.7005814

>>7005787
I'm not fat. I've never been fat, and I enjoy stuffing my face at every opportunity. It would take me a determined, disciplined effort to get fat. I'm not sure I could do it.

Actually, I did come close to the BMI definition of "obese" toward the end of a bulking diet when I forced myself to eat two dozen eggs a day to speed my progress in weight training, but there was never really a lot of fat, and the excess fat melted off (along with a good bit of the muscle) when I stopped force-feeding myself.

And that was the hard part for me of the training: eating so much that I gained weight. Lifting weights was just fun and interesting. I looked forward to it as the best part of my day. When I eat a lot, sitting still and not exerting myself becomes difficult. When I don't eat much, I don't move much.

This is how people are supposed to be. That's a healthy bodily response to variation of calorie intake.

But I know people who are fat, and with them it's more like eating lots of food just brings them up to my level of energy when I'm not eating enough. It's as if their fat is a parasite that grabs away the calories to feed its own maintenance and growth and leaves them little for activity.

There's something wrong with their metabolism. That much is obvious. The difference between what I do and what they do is not a matter of choice or discipline.

There has to be some better way to treat their obesity than to blame them for the problem and tell them to try harder.

>> No.7005819

>>7005814
as per
>>7005764
I call bullshit.
Much more likely you are biased than he breaking statistics

>> No.7005832

>>7005814
The way to treat being fat is just to make sure fat people are as healthy as possible. Human bodies aren't going to smoothly switch between disparate weights until we have some very advance metabolism/genetic manipulation tools. Telling fat people to just work harder and not be fat is proven to not only be ineffective, but depress and unmotivate fat people. If other people were actually concerned about fat people's health, they would be worried about the life-shortening effects depression, stress, and social marginalization has on fat people.

We should be focusing on making sure people get as much exercise they need, a healthy diet, and that they're not killing themselves over being fat. That's how you improve fat people's health.

>> No.7005838

>>7005819
Do you understand that when I eat food and become more energetic, and therefore effortlessly become active and burn more calories, that has little or nothing to do with BMR?

Measurement of BMR specifically excludes all calories burned due to activity, and even during digestion. It's the measure of the rate of calorie consumption while awake but mentally and physically at rest, in a "thermally neutral" environment.

It's a totally arbitrary, ill-defined concept, of extremely limited relevance. It even excludes the difference in calories burned by the amount of tossing and turning while asleep.

It's not actually even possible to measure BMR reliably. There are criteria which are impossible to establish, or even properly define, like the subject being mentally at rest. BMR isn't real. It's pseudoscience.

>> No.7005843

>>7005838
Yea you choose to move, your fatlord buddy doesn't
Exactly the point i'm arguing
There is nothing magical metabolism involved.

>> No.7005863

>>7005814
They are just lazy anon. You have to understand that.

>> No.7005864

>>7005774
>pretending McDonalds salads are low calorie

>> No.7005872

No matter how much or how little, eating always makes me very sleepy. I have to avoid eating before class, movies, etc. Any suggestions? I've tried drinking coffee after every meal, but caffeine just makes me feel like a zombie. Walking around but still dead.

>> No.7005874

Is it possible to have a "food addiction", /sci/?

Lately I've been eating much more fast food than usual, something about it just calls to me. Burger King, pizza" french frie, it's all good

This picture makes I want some of if

>> No.7005881

>>7005843
>Your body prepares for physical activity and sends signals to your brain that it should be moved, your fatlord buddy's body doesn't.
What do you think "metabolism" means? Here's a clue: it's not short for "basal metabolic rate".

Metabolism is the totality of chemical reactions occuring within the cells of a lifeform. The measure of thermogenesis is only one aspect of it.

Treating "a difference of metabolism" as simply "a difference of basal metabolic rate" is wrong and stupid.

>> No.7005887

>>7005881
>determinism made me fat.

>> No.7005893

>>7005874
>Is it possible to have a "food addiction", /sci/?
yes
>the rest of the post
no

>> No.7005906 [DELETED] 

>>7005881
Uh dude, BMR = basal metabolic rate

Basal refers to the rest state.

>> No.7005946

Post about free will: No such thing, faggot.
Post about metabolism: Get some self control, fatty.

>> No.7005968

>>7005946
Having no free will doesn't mean that nobody can influence his decisions.

>> No.7005985

Two guys ingest 2000 Kcal a day

One guy resting metabolism burns 1800 Kcal
Second guy resting metabolism burns 1500 Kcal

One will get fatter faster than the other unless the second guy reduce caloric intake or exercise more.

Either way, being fat is your own fault. 100 years ago fat people were rare so it is yourself, that indulges in the modernities of life, that made yourself fat. There is, literally, zero scientific acceptable proof that you are fat due to anything but your own lifestyle.

>> No.7006007

>>7005985
>100 years ago fat people were rare
Rarer but not rare. Around 1/5 in America — though definitions of overweight, obese, etc. were not always clear, so it's hard to say for sure.

>> No.7006009

>>7005985
rich people were fat. Now everyone lives by those standards, so yeah exactly. Time to stop fat shaming and accept fat again as the dominant population.

>> No.7006012

>>7005874
>Is it possible to have a "food addiction", /sci/?
Only in the sense that everything people overindulge in is now called "addiction".

Strictly speaking though, it's not the same as nicotine or narcotic addiction.
"Everything's addictive" advocates like to point to dopamine. Every pleasurable involves dopamine, from playing with puppies to taking a shot of heroin.
So playing with puppies must be as addictive as heroin, since they both involve dopamine.
Never mind that heroin also involves opiate receptor sites in the brain.

But if you have a hundred people smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, after a month you've got 100 addicts.
Try the same thing with doughnuts, or even alcohol for that matter.

Clearly, food addiction, gambling addiction etc aren't the same thing as actual drug addiction.

So man up, take responsibility for your actions and don't hide behind the word "addiction".

>> No.7006022

>>7005985
100 years ago, every adult alive came from a generation where about of babies born died before reaching adulthood, due to malnutrition, infectious disease, or accident. There was a significant selectiveness involved. People with healthy metabolisms, strong immune systems, clear senses, and mental alertness were much more likely to survive.

We are genetically different from the people 100 years ago. For multiple generations we have saved all the rejects and enabled them to breed. The population is now composed almost entirely of the descendents of people who would not have survived to adulthood if born before the 20th century. It may be composed almost entirely of people who would not themselves have survived to adulthood in the past.

Before you say, "That's impossible, evolution is slow!" consider the specifics here. Genetic change in a population can be very fast. If a new plague sweeps through, a population that was only 1% resistant to that disease can afterward be 99% resistant to it.

Modern medicine and agriculture has tremendously relaxed the selective pressure on human genetics. Harmful mutations and awful combinations of genes are artificially prevented from leaving the gene pool, when previously they were vigorously scrubbed out by a ~50% infant mortality rate.

>> No.7006054

>>7006022
>preventing mechanical complications and infections make the genepool worse!

You're an idiot. You might as well argue that soap, garbage disposal and antibiotics are detrimental to our genepool.

>> No.7006056

>>7006054
>implying anon isn't a filthy basement monster

>> No.7006070

>>7006022
Another thing is that food is different. Sugar, vegetable oil, hydrogenated fats, highly sophisticated color, flavor, and preservatives that confuse our senses about what we're eating and how fresh it is, hormonally-manipulated meat, fruits and vegetables bred and chemically fertilized and treated with the aim of maximizing marketability without regard to the effect on nutrition, and it's prepared and advertised by people motivated by profit to convince us to eat as much food made of the cheapest ingredients (which happen to be nutritionally poor, and often are recent inventions) as possible.

In the past, when people found something sweet to eat, it would always be packed with micronutrients. Now it can be made largely of refined sugar, absent of any micronutrients. If you wanted to eat food with a variety of different colors, flavors, and textures, you'd need to eat a variety of nutritionally different foods. Now you could eat a superficially different food product every day of the year, and not take in a substantial amount of anything but starchy industrial corn and vegetable oil.

Our instincts have been subverted and taken advantage of by the commercial food industry until they are no longer useful guides to proper nutrition.

Nutrition didn't used to be something you had to study. You just had to be able to acquire the food your body wanted.

>> No.7006101

>>7006054
>You might as well argue that soap, garbage disposal and antibiotics are detrimental to our genepool.
Uh yeah. That's pretty obviously part of what I'm arguing (except for garbage disposal, which I didn't mention).

Modern hygiene and antibiotics mean you can often survive with a broken immune system. When people had something wrong with their immune system before, it would usually kill them in childhood, and they wouldn't have chlidren of their own. So harmful mutations didn't accumulate. They'd pop up, and get weeded out.

You know what happens when you have harmful mutations in the genes for your immune system? It doesn't just get weak, it can do stupid shit like attack your own body.

There has been an absolute explosion of autoimmune disorders over the last century, and it has just kept accelerating. That's why so many schools are now peanut-free, and why restaurants have a gluten-free menu. But that kind of stuff only helps prevent damage from *triggered* autoimmune issues. Some don't need a trigger, they just attack the body regardless of environment.

It can be very hard to recognize subtle autoimmune problems. They can cause obesity and problems with brain function, among many other things.

>> No.7006135

>>7006101
And internet means that people like you don't get killed for making idiotic arguments.
Man if it still was stone age, all would be good.

>> No.7006150

Brown adipose tissue

>> No.7006173

left r9k for a change and decided to check out other boards.
thought "sci seems interesting. they must be talking about all sorts of interesting things in a mature fashion while providing sources to back their claims.

out of 150 posts 2 provided sources
the rest 148
>Europe a shit America stronk
>your just fat and your mother is fat too
>my university is better tham yours
>you're stupid
>on you're stupid!

>> No.7006182

>>7006135
I'm not saying, "Boy, it sure is bad now that we aren't living in filth and dying like flies.", you simpleminded cretin.

In a fucking thread on obesity, somehow you find it objectionable that someone's talking about it as a negative consequence of progress and prosperity.

As you go back in the past, you see that incomes and requirements for physical labor varied tremendously. Yet obesity was still far rarer among those who could easily afford to eat twice as much as those who could only afford an adequate diet, and who didn't need to leave their homes at all if they didn't want to, than it is among the whole population today.

Something else has happened, other than the availability of larger amounts of food and the reduction of need for physical exertion.

>> No.7006188

>>7006173
Believe it or not but this thread is high quality compared to other threads on here.
Don't even know why I waste my time on here

>> No.7006191

>>7006182
Obesity wasn't rare.

>> No.7006199

>>7006182
No it wasn't
People used to get just as fat back in the day.
They just didn't have fucking big macs and cars either.

>> No.7006204

>>7006199
>People used to get just as fat back in the day.
Of course, every kind of disease we have now occurred in the past, but obesity was much more rare, even among the idle rich.

>> No.7006209

>>7006204
Yes because they didn't have big macs
I don't see your fucking point.

>> No.7006213

>>7006209
The idle rich could afford as much fatty meat and bread as they wanted. What makes Big Macs magic?

>> No.7006218

>>7006213
The idle rich were also fat, and they still moved a lot more than we do.
Also rich doesn't equal fat, I'm pretty sure rich people are the income group with least amount of fat people today.
Rich people eat a lot more low calorie, better prepared foods like berries, mushrooms, better meats, spices stuff like that.
Poor people stuff themselves with fat and white bread because that is the cheapest shit you can get.

>> No.7007543

>>7006218
so true. Better food education, more societal pressures and more idle time to spend focusing on things like body weight.

>> No.7007558

>>7006213
>What makes Big Macs magic?
The fact that you can pick them up through your car window within a few blocks of practically everywhere for like $4.

Yeah in theory rich people 200+ years ago COULD have eaten big macs everyday, but it would have been so much expense and trouble keeping up a steady supply it wouldn't be worth it, either they'd eat normal food and like steak and vegetables and potatoes a lot, or they'd go all out with fucking duck and veal and bird pies and eel and all kinds of ridiculous shit.

And obesity was a lot less common, but shit like gout where it's not a matter of calories it's a matter of too much shitty food long term was very common, that is what you would get if you were rich long before you were obese, there was a bunch of fancy and extremely rich food but not the sheer volume of empty calories like fries and soda have.

>> No.7007589

Someone eating 6,000 calories can be very different from someone eating 2,000 calories. What calories you "gain" depend on if you absorbed them or not. If you shit out 5000 calories, you'll gain less weight than the person who ate 2000 calories. This is all in combination with things like microflora which help digest food, and how the food is cooked (more cooked or processed = easier to absorb calories from)
Your body is not a 100% efficient calorie-absorbing machine. People who eat a lot but are still naturally thin have poor calorie absorption (which evolutionarily is pretty bad, while having high calorie efficiency and storing fat for famines = good)

>> No.7007598

>>7005426
some people consume more energy than they expend, and other consume less energy than the expend

it's that fucking simple. fat people who supposedly eat healthy and say dieting doesn't work are bullshitting you and are simply sneaking extra food on the side or plain out over-eating the food they're dieting on. "it's healthy so I can eat more of it!!!"

>> No.7007602

>>7007598

People aren't cars. Food isn't gas. You don't insert food and it's instant fuel. Food needs to be broken down and absorbed. Some people are more efficient at absorbing the fuel and not wasting any, so they gain more weight from the same amount of calories consumed than other people

>> No.7007628

>>7007602
Then why don't they adapt their eating behaviour? Also I'm not fully convinced what you said is true. It's clear to me that not every human will digest food exactly the same way, but I don't think it varies a lot. A few percent maybe.

>> No.7007633

>>7007602
I never said anything about people eating the same amount of calories should be the same size, I'm saying people eat more calories than their body burns get fat and people who eat less calories than their bodies burn don't get fat. I never included hard numbers.

My point is find out where your body's maintenance level is and either eat a little more if you want to gain weight, or eat a little less if you want to lose weight. It's a simple process. People don't gain or lose weight because of their speshul snowflake body, they gain or lose weight because of their discipline (or lack thereof)

>> No.7007649

Self-reported consumption rates are notoriously unreliable, OP.

>> No.7007668

>>7005584
You don't need a 4year degree to get into Med school, just the ore reqs. Most people can finish part of those in HS.

>> No.7007692

>>7005814
>Actually, I did come close to the BMI definition of "obese" toward the end of a bulking diet when I forced myself to eat two dozen eggs a day to speed my progress in weight training, but there was never really a lot of fat, and the excess fat melted off (along with a good bit of the muscle) when I stopped force-feeding myself.
Hahahahahahahaha
AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.7007694
File: 14 KB, 480x360, summer_bungaloo_ayy_lmao_convention_3015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7007694

I'm just about 5'9 and I've been in the 145-155lbs range since I was 15 (20 now). I can eat whatever I want and however much I want with little exercise, if at all. How long do you guys think this will last? I assumed it was genetics and that my metabolism would slow down in the future (and I would gain weight if I did not work out). Any self-acclaimed kinesiologists here?

>> No.7007696

>>7005968
Yes it does
Think before you type.

>> No.7007704

>>7005874
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cag5QmA-hpw

>> No.7007711

Free will doesn't exist and is an illusion therefore you can't blame fat people

>> No.7007744

>>7007692
Don't laugh too hard. I got my 5-rep deadlift up from ~300 lbs to ~400 lbs in a month on a diet of two dozen eggs, two liters of milk, and a pound of meat each day. Later, when the fat was gone, the strength was still there (some of the endurance went when the fat took some muscle mass with it).

Bulking diets work. You force the levels of nutrients in your blood up unnaturally so they're never the limiting factor for growth. In theory, you should be able to get equally good results with less food, but in practice, it's too hard to hit exactly the intake that maximizes your growth without excess fat storage, so it's practical to just overeat, as long as you don't have trouble losing fat.

And if you're hung up on the bit about meeting the BMI criteria for obesity, there are people who do that with extremely low body fat levels. BMI is just calculated from height and weight. BMI-based standards tend to register athletes as either overweight or obese. BMI is shitty pseudoscience.