Jaggu wrote:There are people who do not work out and eat whatever they want, yet skinny. We say, they have high metabolism. If they have to burn 500-600 extra calories over a period of 24 hrs( as the person who is overweight and has reduced his/her weight by diet and exercise by creating that 500-600 calorie deficit) that means their per hour metabolism has to be higher by 600/24 = 25 calories/Hr. Can not believe that their metabolism will be higher by 25 calories per hour; that's why this doesn't make sense to me.
We all know that if you take a person who is struggling with weight, whether it is the last 10 or any amount, and have them stop eating completely, they will lose weight, with or without any additional exercise/activity. Since 1930 and the studies by McKay, in 100s (if not 1000s) of studies, there has never a recorded incident in any study on any animal where if you create a negative energy balance, they do not lose weight. As Dr Lisle likes to joke about, he has a special room where if you think you are one of them, he will lock you in it for 30 days and feed you and you will lose weight, guaranteed.
In addition, controlled studies in metabolic chambers and isolation wards have been done time and time again. There is no mystery or paradox and generally speaking, while there is always some variance amongst humans, there are no people blessed with "high" metabolisms and those cursed with "low" ones. That is one of the myths of die-ting that just wont die.
When they do study people, they find that generally speaking the ones who tend to be thinner are much more active throughout the day, not only in general activities, but even in ways we may not think about burning calories (i.e., fidgeting, moving, etc) which can account for 200-300 calories a day or more. These have been called NEAT or Non Exercise Activities. They also do not eat in excess of their caloric balance. Those who tend to be heavier, are more sedentary and burn less NEAT calories and consume calories in excess of their balance. Our, or their, perception of how much is consumed, is usually not a good accurate measure as there is inaccuracies in caloric counting, not just due to "mis"reporting, but also to mis perceptions and of course, the whole problems with accuracy in food labels and restaurant meals. Those who struggle more also tend to be the ones who underestimate their calories more often. Remember food volume is not an accurate indicator of caloric content. And, outside of food volume (i ate so much!!) people do not have good tools to measure/estimate caloric intake. Even professionals in the field trying to be accurate can be 30% off.
In regard to NEAT, for those of you who get the Nutrition Action newsletter from CSPI, there is a great story on this from one of the researchers in the field.
Oil can be a problem as it is the most calorie dense food, easily hidden in foods, easily over consumed and little bits add huge amounts of calories.
The last 10 may be a problem for some people for many different reasons but without exception, can be achieved with adjustments, whether that is in caloric density, activity, or some combination of both without having to go hungry, starve, deprive themselves, or engage in extremely high levels of activity.
In Health
Jeff
