i've realized that its not faster metabolisms: it's appetites

i used to blame everything on a faster metabolism. whenever my skinny friend would pig out on a huge in-n-out double double, i would go 'man, she' allowed to. it's her metabolism.'

but NOW i've been closely observing the skinny people around me and i realize that they eat barely anything. for example, my mom's friend's daughter is a little bone. she has no fat on her whatsoever. its on the verge of unhealthy looking. and i observed what she ate while my mom babysitted her at my house. the teeny girl, throughout the whole day, ate what i estimated to be 800-1000 calories only. for a 9 year old kid, that's  barely enough to live on. little kids are supposed to eat more then 2000, if i'm correct. but she just chose not to eat!

my other teeny friend (5'7, weighs 117) told me all that she ate today, and i observed. all she had was a handful of dry cereal, and then she had a vigorous dance workout for 3 hours, then she had some soup and juice. when we hung out, she ate a bunch of cheez-its and some dove decadent chocolate milk. while i knew she was consuming about 600 calories in one sitting of snacking, i knew that with what she ate earlier and what she would eat for dinner she'd probably end up only consuming 1200-1300 calories, and this is by choice, without a diet plan. and after doing yoga and dance for 3-4 hours!

my mom's other friend once told me she had to force herself to eat. like, she had to literally make herself eat even barely enough to live on because she disliked food. and this woman was teeny weeny.

so, is it really metabolism? or is it just appetite? i wonder if anyone's researched that. because i no longer believe you need to count your calories to be thin. you just have to have a small apetite. but for people like me who can eat a lot, it's really hard.

all i know is that the thinnest people i know eat whatever they want, but they barely ever do it. and when they do, its a small amount that they choose to do.

so now, whenever i feel like grabbing a handful of cinnamon toast crunch to munch on, dry, i think "is this what a naturally small-appetited person would do? no, they would walk right over to the fridge and contentedly sip their water, their hunger pangs nonexistant"

i dont know if anyone is going to reply to this, but i just wanted to share my maybe-not-so-breakthrough discovery. eh, i felt like sharing.

I have been at my goal weight for 18 months, though at my heaviest was about 35 pounds more than I am now... never was very heavy. I met a woman who believed her metabolism prevented her from losing weight. But then she told me that when she weighed 220 she ate 3000 calories... she had tracked it and was quite sure. Well, to maintain 128 I eat about half of what she ate. A light bulb went on in my head. By dividing her daily calories by her weight, I determined she needed 13.63 calories per pound... by contrast I need about 12.5.  So not only did she eat double as me, but pound for pound, she has a faster metabolism than I do. I was intrigued and began to collect data from people of all shapes and sizes. So far I have about 60 people, although only numbers from 7 obese (exceedlingly few obese people know how much they ate at their heaviest).  The majority of lean people need about 11 to 16 calories per pound (except a couple very athletic with upwards of 20 calories per pound). Of the 7 obese I found, their range was the same... about 11 to 16 calories per pound. The only difference between the groups is that some lean people have a much higher number if they are extremely active... by contrast it woud be rare for an obese person to be so athletic.

It is absolutely true that some people need more calories than other people. Studies using metabolic chambers, which measure RMR only, when comparing people of exactly the same lean body mass, found that the metabolism can vary hundreds above and below the average.  My method takes into account activity level as well, but it shows a similar spread.  

From the limited data I have collected, I see that people with very slow metabolisms can be quite lean, and people with faster metabolisms can be obese. What this means its that metabolism is a factor, but it is not the determining factor.  Obesity is extremely complex, but mostly it is not about the body, but what is between the ears. It is not just that some people have more will power... there are a number of ways people are genetically different that can predispose them to obesity.  So if you're overweight 1) to a degree the deck might be stacked against you, but 2) these factors do not destine you to a life of obesity. You can still be the weight you want to be. Many people with slow metabolisms achieve a low body weight.

The Pima Indians of the south west have an extremely high level of obesity, and also all the genetic traits that would predispose them to obesity. The exact same ethnic group in Mexico is lean. The difference is that in Mexico the food supply is limited and the Pima there have to labor harder. 

To compare people's metabolisms in this calories-per-pounds way is certainly crude, still it is interesting. I looked all over the internet and have not found anyone who has looked at it this way before. If anyone has seen that, let me know.

I am interested in collecting more numbers, especially from heavier people to see if the pattern holds for a larger group of people.  But I do not want guesses... if you actually tracked it when you were heaviest, I would like your numbers. Thanks.

I don't know if I'm what you'd call 'teeny weeny', but I'm 5'4" and 106 pounds and eat A LOT. not whatever I want--I stay away from high-fat foods--but I definitely eat a lot, and all the time. It's not my appetite either--I get genuinely HUNGRY every couple of hours. I'm maintaining at 1100-1400 calories a day, burning 200-300 a day.

oh, and to finish off the point: I always think about how people who exercise less than I do eat the same amount. but then I remember that other kids probably eat whole eggs instead of just the whites like I do, and choose soda or juice over water or tea, or use two whole pieces of bread instead of slicing theirs in half for sandwiches like I sometimes do, or eat full-fat instead of fat-free cheese.. stuff like that. so they're probably taking in more calories anyway.

revolution3 you don't eat a lot. You eat 1100-1400 and burn about 200 cals so where do you have this idea you eat a lot?

I used to restrict my calories to as low as 800-1000 a day and I actually didn't weigh much less than I do now ..mind you I was pretty sedentary and my body composition was higher in fat.

Now I'm VERY active. I do an hour of strength 4times a week and 1 hour of running every day (not a typo..I run 7 days a week). In addition to that I also do ballet and pliates 3 times a week. So some days I'm basically doing 2-3 hours of activity. I'm 5'4 127-129 pounds but my body compostion is now high in lean muscle mass ...you would be shocked if I told you how many calories I eat. Usually I eat about 2000-2300 (high quality cals) a day and I maintain 127-129 pounds.

I've noticed that I'm better off maintaining because I do have way more lean muscle than most people...and when I eat 1200-1500 cals a day with all that activity I lose weight pretty fast but my workouts really suck and when I lose weight at my level of fitness I'm pretty sure I'm losing muscle and trace amounts of fat.  

So my point is ...my caloric intake is in proportion to my activity level and lean muscle mass. And yes people can be skinny and eating a lot but they are also probably moving a lot. People who are wicked lean need to eat a lot to preserve the integrity of lean muscle tissue otherwise the muscle takes too much energy to maintain and the body will just start breaking it down. If I was an inactive 5'4 127 pounds i'm sure my body would look very different and I'm sure I wouldn't be eating 2000-2300 cals a day.

Also reading Z0mgkatie's description of how these people eat makes me think...well when people eat a handful of cereal, cheez-its (whatever that is it sounds like processed garbage) and dove chocolates then go do 3 hours of dance of course they will be underweight because they don't have a lot of body fat or muscle.  plus eating junk all day, even in small amounts I'm sure hasn't given them a beautiful, lean and healthy body...they are probably skinny and flabby. A good tip off that a person's metabolism is screwed due to poor nutrition and lack of lean muscle mass is when they are eating so few cals and do 3 hours of dance ...this means their metabolism is probably dead slow!!

I think my metabolism is slow, really, although I can artificially increase it to normal if I run around a lot. I know from past experience that I maintain 115-120 pounds on 1200 calories a day, assuming a normal level of activity; not a lot, but not nothing. For some freakish reason I don't understand, at 135 I maintain on 1800, and at 150 I maintain on 2000+.

Treating an underlying problem with absorbing minerals and vitamins has slashed my appetite to a teensy tiny fraction of what it used to be. I always felt starved even on 2000 or more calories before, and didn't realize that it was because I couldn't absorb nutrients well. Now that I can, I'm good to go, on much less.

actually workoutaddict, you might be surprised to hear that my friend (the one who works out) is thin and muscular. i'm very jealous of her body type. she has zero flab. she's like a size 1 or 3 in pants and has really toned arms and stuff. her thighs don't jiggle when she walks. *sighs deeply*

My metabolism has been all over the map. Like workoutaddict, I used to lift and run 5x's a week and had 13% bf. In those days, I could eat upwards of 2500 calories and maintain my weight - no problem. Back then I also weighed closer to 120 lbs, but fit in the same size clothes I do today at 108.

Last year I had heartburn & GI problems, following a long period of forced inactivity due to back problems,  and my metabolism went in the toilet. My body temperature was even one full degree lower (97.6) !!!! I could eat 1200-1400 calories and gain weight. I did gain. My weight shot up 25 lbs in only a few short months.

After starting a walking program and then getting back into running, those problems seem to be fixed now and my metabolism is back on track.  It's not as fast as it used to be when I had more lean mass, but it's running good. Something just clicked in a few months back - my body temp is running normal 98.6 now. It feels weird - I keep taking it thinking I have a fever, but no, it's just normal again!

Back to the original post, I do think zomgkate is on to something!! Appetite definetly plays a role in all of this, and appetite is not the same as metabolism. In an ideal situation, your appetite should lead you to eat just the right amount of calories to fuel your body's unique metabolism - whether it is fast or slow, whether you exercise or not, whether you have lots of lean mass or not.

I won't explain it well, but try googling ghrelin and leptin - the hunger hormones - and reading up on that. Recent research shows that many obese people are leptin-resistant, which means that they feel hungry when they shouldn't be.

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was also some research suggesting that snacking throughout the day is not good - it's preferable to eat three squares instead because this somehow helps with the ghrelin and leptin levels in your system. Can't remember now how it all works, so I'll stop right there before I get in over my head......:-)

I think that may also have something to do with that person's body type and muscle definition...I'm pretty sure that some people - even though they may not have more muscle - have better definition. I have a friend who was very athletic, was constantly working out and trying to build muscle - she would go to the gym sometimes 2-3 times per day and lift weights, she also ran aLOT. She really wanted good definition in her arms, etc, but lacked any at all. In fact she always looked slightly flabby, even when she flexed, instead of muscley (sp?) and ripped like she wanted (ie: she wanted to see the lines of the muscles when you flex). She was strong and fit, but still looked flabby. I remember one time that she was complaining that whatever she did she couldn't get that line that shows up on your triceps to actually show up (you know when you flex your arm back and can see that line of muscle? But its hard to get - have to really work just the triceps usually), but I can do some measly amount of exercise (comparitively) for only a couple days and suddenly have the tricep line (and biceps, and shoulders and etc)...she was sooo mad at me for that lol.

Sooo: I think that there may be other factors at work with the "skinny people who look so fit but aren't"...I suspect it may have something to do with what an individual's body composition is, how much lean muscle they have and whether they carry any fat around it. Then there is the "skinny fat" person syndrome, where they may look fit, but just carry all their fat around their internal organs, where it is less noticable but more dangerous...Also: related to my story above - it must be easier for some people to build lean muscle than others...is that possible? Not sure what controls it, does anyone know?

zomgkate, skinny-fat people tend to have little subcutaneous fat, but lots of intramuscular fat. They have fatty muscles.

But if your friend dances three hours a day, I highly doubt she has fatty muscles. It's really only the people who diet down to skinniest but never do any cardio or weights, that end up skinny fat.

Skinny fat is about the fat within the muscles. Yes, you could also have fat around the organs, but usually when we say "skinny fat" we mean fat within the muscles. You can't get rid of intramuscular (or is it inter-muscular?? I'm never sure) without exercise (cardio OR weight lifting or both).

Fatty muscles are short and round. Fat-free muscles are long and lean.

This fat doesn't respond to diet. It only responds to exercise because it's the very first source of fat that your body is going to use when you are calling upon your muscles to exercise or lift.  When you exercise without dieting, you may not lose the subcutaneous fat for awhile, but you will lose the fat within your muscle - you literally get skinny from the inside out.

Im on here to get healthy its not about how skinny I get I dont want to be a stick im a woman and want to look like one. I think ppl sometime tend to forget on here its not about a persons weight its about how one feels at the end of the day........You can feel wonderful at any weight as long as you change your eating habits and start eating the right kinds of foods and with some exercise begin to feel like a new person. Im just out of the 190's category and I feel so GREAT just from all the changes im doing for my body to the better.

well, feelings wise, i feel the same as when i scarfed junk food all day, so iiii dunno man. but thats a whole new topic.

Katie, Be proud of yourself your only 14 by what your profile says. You lost the weight before adulthood and that is commendable! If your feeling crappy maybe you just need a good little pickmeup some fun time with friends..............We all feel crappy sometimes just remember you did something a lot of ppl wish they had before they became adults cause believe me sweetie trying to lose weight after 30 is really really hard.

Another piece of the appetite puzzle for some people is insulin resistance. People who are insulin resistant are often hungry if they eat carbs, especially refined carbs, without some protein.

I used to do 3 squares and just go hungry in between, but I find I do much better breaking it up into 5 or 6 mini meals (while eating about the same amount in total). Sometimes it's as simple as eating part of a meal now and part later.

It also helps me to avoid the dreaded "meeting donuts" and "office birthday celebrations"--I can always say, "Sorry, I just ate", and it's always true, and I don't get desparately hungry.

Very frustrating, I've noticed the same thing. Although I notice when these people DO eat its unhealthy, almost all the time.