Hi, my name is John and I'm a slow metabolizer

[Pedaling Fool]

Everyone always looks up to those with a fast metabolism, thanks to our fixation on keeping the pounds off. As a result I think we tend to look at those people generally as the healthier people in our society, at least that's the impression I get.

However, I wonder if in fact those with a super fast mebabolism, which serves them well when food is abundant, are they actually at a disadvantage when food is less plentiful. I also wonder if us that have a very slow metabolism are better suited for long-distance excursion where we must get by with less food than when we're in an established area.

I've always felt cheated by my glacially slow metabolism, but since my long-distance hike of 2006 (I won't call it a thru, since I'm not exclusively a whiteblazer ) I was simply astonished by how far I could go on such little food. It's probably my biggest learning experience from my hike and it completely changed how I look at food.

[HikerMom58]

I think that if everyone ate only when they were really hungry, (wait until ur stomach growls- hungry) and stop eating when they are full, (full- isn't a feeling that we prob. recognize properly at all) it would completely change how we look at food on and off the trail. It's a highly individual thing, for the reason you stated.
I have always had a fast metabolism. As long as I carry the right kind & amount of food to fuel my body, for the job I'm asking it to do, I feel great. It would be interesting to see what it takes (food wise) for me to stay feeling great compared to you. I might be jealous.

[Slo-go'en]

Exactly how do you know if you have a fast or slow metabolism? If your skinny you have a fast metabolism and if your fat it's slow?

I had a friend who stayed real skinny because he had a serious thyriod conditon which eventually killed him. For the rest of us, I belive diet and exercise is the predominate factor, not metabolism.

[Rasty]

Eat only when your hungry works. It's kind of sad what many are doing to themselves with food.
America.jpg

[Tom Murphy]

You do not need to think of food as "a fuel" in order to maintain a healthy bodyweight. I agree that, as a country, we do have issues with portion size.

[colorado_rob]

Exactly how do you know if you have a fast or slow metabolism? If your skinny you have a fast metabolism and if your fat it's slow? .

I have the same question... I'm relatively slender and I've been told by my doc that I have a borderline Thyroid condition and "my engine runs very cool" (I take a low-dose drug to bring the engine up just a tad). Because I hike/climb/workout all the damn time, I manage to not gain weight. Periods when I simply cannot be active, I really REALLY have to watch my caloric intake. So perhaps to answer one of the OP questions: I personally am glad about this; I find I can easily get by with 1.5 pounds of food a day on long hikes, without losing any weight. I also hike "cooler", meaning I don't sweat easily (though I'm sure I will next summer on the AT!) and don't have to constantly swap clothing on and off. Really, the only downside I see of us slow metabolizers is that during inactive periods, we do indeed have to watch our diet, basically just eat less.

[Rasty]

My metabolism is all over the place. If I'm real active it kicks in very quickly. If I'm not being real active it slows down to a crawl and I eat like a supermodel. I have been the same weight since about 16 years old. For me the key has always been not eating until I am actually hungry and stopping before getting to full. I find that I can go without a lot of food and still have energy but feel chilled. If I eat more then the chill goes away. I have plenty of nutritional knowledge but don't follow it for myself. I basically eat crap food, but limit the quantity.

[bamboo bob]

I find that I'm am not very hungry for the first 4-5 days of a long trip. So starting a bit too heavy is OK as far as energy levels go. But a few weeks in when "the hunger" starts I could not wait for ""when I'm hungry because I am always hungry and pretty much get hungry very shortly after eating. I am not a "fast metabolism" person. If such a thing exists I am sure it is a rare condition. I am a guy who gains weight i.e. gets fat if I sit around and eat a lot.

[imscotty]

John Gault,

I am wondering if you feel that long distance hiking changes your metabolism in any way?

Judging from many of the WB postings I get the feeling that many hikers have the problem of quickly gaining back all their weight and then some at the end of a tru-hike. I am wondering if this is the case with the hikers who tend to load up on carbs rather than a more balanced diet that includes protein.

I once had a friend who did Springer to HF after graduating high school. He claimed that the hike forever changed his metabolism for the better. He said that growing up he was always overweight and had a 'slow metabolism'. I met him several years after his hike and he was still lean and fit and could eat like a horse. I am hoping that is how it will work for me

[The Solemates]

i think there is an aspect of genetics (what you are calling metabolism, here), but that most of it has to do with lifestyle as well. And, I believe that we get our lifestyle from genetics. people do what they are taught to do.

i hear friends all the time say something along the lines of: "You make me sick. You eat whatever you want, whenever you want and don't gain a pound. I walk past a McDonald's and gain 5 pounds." this type of talk infuriates me. The person who says something like this generally sleeps in, sits at a desk job all day, comes home and watches TV, and then goes to bed. The reason he does this is because he was taught to do it growing up. On Saturday he may mow his lawn and on Sunday go for a walk in the park, and he says he gets exercise. On top of all this, his diet is terrible and he overeats.

Compare that to someone I call active - that gets up 2-3 times a week at 0500 to go to the gym, once a week or so decides to go for a walk around the office complex at lunch, comes home and works on the house for an hour 2-3 times a week (with 2 kids and one on the way I'm always fixing something at the house), works outside for 6 hours each saturday he is home (chopping wood, getting up leaves, mowing the lawn, washing the car, etc, and when not home does something active like hiking or water skiing - ie, not at a friends house watching football!), and then plays ball outside with his kids sunday afternoon. on top of this, this guy only eats when he is hungry. (i dont pretend to eat healthy - and i actually eat all the time (like 5 times a day) - but i dont gorge myself every meal.)

These type of people are a lot more active - but dont necessarily appear to be at first glance. in fact, i often have to sit at a desk during the day (not every day, thankfully) - but i find that on those days i eat a lot less.

i hate being compared to someone who is a slob. my life and theirs is nothing alike, even though i may sit next to their cube, live in the same neighborhood, eat the same food, etc.

quit blaming it on genetics people!

[PapaGarrettP]

My take has always been that a car which you run at 55 mph will, over the life of the car, run longer than one which you drive at 70. Celebrate your slower metabolism. Tortoises outlive hares!

[jbwood5]

Your slower metabolism may be a benefit in some ways, especially for endurance activities. When I switched to long distance running from previous 5K and 10K runs, I found that my endurance wained because I was burning up my reserves way too fast. I would eat as much food as those who I run with but always found myself dying out faster. The other folks just metabolized their energy at a slower rate even though we had about the conditioning.
The same has always been true on a back pack hike. I am always famished after a few days and losing way too much weight, wanting to stay in town a day just to eat. Yet, I was hiking with a lady one trip and she was a vegan. I never could understand how she could go for days and days on that diet.

It is so true about tortoises outliving hares. Alas... I have finally reached the age where I am slowing down..... not that I like it or anything. ... but I do go much slower these days.

[SawnieRobertson]

There is no way that anyone who does not have this condition can convince me that I should be grateful for being hypothyroid. My temperature, for instance, runs from 95 to 97 degrees, so I am often too cold to be able to easily warm. And look at the core temps of those with hypothermia. I feel like I am standing on a cliff right next to that. My skin is dry. My hair thins. I am often lethargic. So what do I do to counteract this? Well, since age 13, I have taken thyroid supplementation. Today, that means Armour thyroid. Then the blood tests report that I am "normal." But why then are my feet like ice at night? And weight is always a problem. The only way I can keep it in my control is to eat 800 to 1000 calories/day. How to give it a little shock? Well, exercising every day . . . . My friend Chip was hot to the touch. His metabolism was incredibly high. Yes, and he was able to consume more calories than you can count without "paying for it." He was one of those 100-mile runners. He was in the top 100 in the Ironman Triathlon at Kailua-Kona. In other words, he worked himself to near exhaustion daily. That is why, I believe, I am so happy on the trail. At the end of each day, I am DONE. I think that is how we who are low metabolizers are s'posed to live. Just sayin.' Metabolism rant done.

[moytoy]

How do I know if I'm a slow metabolizer?
Is there a test for this condition?
Do I need to worry about it?
Holy smoke NOW I have something else to worry about.
I'VE DONE SOME SEARCHES BUT DON'T FIND MUCH!
NOW I'M IN A PANIC!

[JAK]

I've never figured out the weight thing, not that that will stop me from posting as an expert.

Let's say, for example, someone has such little self control that they eat an extra 50 calories every day for 20 years, so after the 20 years they are 100 pounds overweight. Is that how it works? Someone is 100 pounds overweight and we all look at them and say, dude, why did you eat that extra 50 calories?

Gotta be more complicated than that. Otherwise I would be like 1000 pounds by now.

[HikerMom58]

How do I know if I'm a slow metabolizer?
Is there a test for this condition?
Do I need to worry about it?
Holy smoke NOW I have something else to worry about.
I'VE DONE SOME SEARCHES BUT DON'T FIND MUCH!
NOW I'M IN A PANIC!

Ha ha!! Poor moytoy No worries... it's all good

I, like JAK , don't pretend to be an expert but I did work in the fitness industry for a while. I don't know if they have a metabolizer test, now, or not but I did "hear" that they were hoping to be able to perform such a test so every person, interested, would be able to know exactly how many calories per day you should consume without gaining weight. It goes without saying that each person would have a different daily calorie intake #. Anyone in the fitness industry would love to offer this information to their clients. Has anyone heard of this test before?

I've never figured out the weight thing, not that that will stop me from posting as an expert.

Let's say, for example, someone has such little self control that they eat an extra 50 calories every day for 20 years, so after the 20 years they are 100 pounds overweight. Is that how it works? Someone is 100 pounds overweight and we all look at them and say, dude, why did you eat that extra 50 calories?

Gotta be more complicated than that. Otherwise I would be like 1000 pounds by now.

LOL... I agree, it's got to be more complicated than that. One thing I've always "heard" is ... a person consuming a mere 200 calories over the undefined proper daily calorie intake #, can be just enough to keep a person from loosing weight. IDK?........ I think this whole gaining/loosing weight issue would be best defined as a "relationship status" could sometimes proclaim.... "it's complicated".

[Pedaling Fool]

John Gault,

I am wondering if you feel that long distance hiking changes your metabolism in any way?

Judging from many of the WB postings I get the feeling that many hikers have the problem of quickly gaining back all their weight and then some at the end of a tru-hike. I am wondering if this is the case with the hikers who tend to load up on carbs rather than a more balanced diet that includes protein.

I once had a friend who did Springer to HF after graduating high school. He claimed that the hike forever changed his metabolism for the better. He said that growing up he was always overweight and had a 'slow metabolism'. I met him several years after his hike and he was still lean and fit and could eat like a horse. I am hoping that is how it will work for me

No, I’ve heard that before that a thru changes your metabolism, but in my case it is pretty much back to normal. Obviously during the hike my metabolism was much higher, just as it is when I’m exercising, but the engine just doesn't run like it does on the trail; I just can’t exercise that much at home – well I could, but then I’d have no time for reading

I don't have any issue with my thyroid, my problems are just normal problems with weight gain as most people have and we are all different, so yes people do metabolize differently, barring medical issues.


I could have easily returned to my former weight after my hike and continued on gaining weight every year (as most people do as they age), but the whole point behind my hike was to hit the restart button, because I was starting to get really fat, like most Americans, but one difference was that I was an active person, yet I was gaining weight every year. And it's not because I was eating more and more every year, actually I was becoming very conscious of my weight gain and actually started cutting back, but it just wasn't enough.

I was starting to believe what I heard, that as you age you just gain weight and there's nothing you can do about it. BS! I've kept the weight off, not because my metabolism is improved after my hike (it has returned to normal), rather because I work at it and you can't work at it by simply exercising, just don't have the time to exercise that much, you just have to cut back on calories. That's why I say I exercise, not to lose or control weight, but to keep the body strong; I eat less to control the weight. Yes, I know there's some overlap, but that's how I have to look at it or else I start to gain weight, despite my very active lifestyle.

I use to worry that I had to take in so much in the way of calories to maintain my energy levels, I believe that's why I kept gaining weight. That's what I learned on my hike, I can do an incredible amount of work with very little food intake. That's how I control my weight now, by not listening to things like: "You must eat 2 lbs of food per day on a thru-hike". You gotta find out what works for you and after my hike I know I don't need 2lbs, so I can get by with even less back home.

There's actually a benefit to exercising while hungry, which you must do on a thru. And if you think about it, we probably evolved that way, going hungry for extended periods of time, because primitive man couldn't just go down to the grocery store. So I don't even agree with people that say you need to eat when you're hungry, sometimes you need to do work when you're hungry and force your body to become more efficient.

[Pedaling Fool]

I've never figured out the weight thing, not that that will stop me from posting as an expert.

Let's say, for example, someone has such little self control that they eat an extra 50 calories every day for 20 years, so after the 20 years they are 100 pounds overweight. Is that how it works? Someone is 100 pounds overweight and we all look at them and say, dude, why did you eat that extra 50 calories?

Gotta be more complicated than that. Otherwise I would be like 1000 pounds by now.

I agree JAK, it's complicated and I haven't figured it out either, it's just an art for me. What kills me about everything that talks about calories burned is that they don't talk about when you exercise your body gets more efficient, but this article at least mentions it, pretty interesting: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-l...-0?page=single


How Many Calories Are You Really Burning?



If you think running and walking both torch the same number of calories per mile, you better put down that cookie.

By Amby Burfoot


Published July 18, 2005



A few months ago I got into an argument with someone who's far smarter than I am. I should have known better, but you know how these things go. Needless to say, I lost the argument. Still, I learned something important in the process.

David Swain is a bicyclist who likes to ride across the country every couple of years. Since I spend most of my time on my feet, I figured I could teach him something about walking and running. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to Swain's Ph.D. in exercise physiology, his position as director of the Wellness Institute and Research Center at Old Dominion

University, and his work on the "Metabolic Calculations" appendix to the American College of Sports Medicine's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription.

Both Swain and I are interested in the fitness-health connection, which makes walking and running great subjects for discussion. To put it simply, they are far and away the leading forms of human movement. Every able-bodied human learns how to walk and run without any particular instruction. The same cannot be said of activities such as swimming, bicycling, skateboarding, and hitting a 3-iron. This is why walking and running are the best ways to get in shape, burn extra calories, and improve your health.

Our argument began when I told Swain that both walking and running burn the same number of calories per mile. I was absolutely certain of this fact for two unassailable reasons: (1) I had read it a billion times; and (2) I had repeated it a billion times. Most runners have heard that running burns about 100 calories a mile. And since walking a mile requires you to move the same body weight over the same distance, walking should also burn about 100 calories a mile. Sir Isaac Newton said so.

Swain was unimpressed by my junior-high physics. "When you perform a continuous exercise, you burn five calories for every liter of oxygen you consume," he said. "And running in general consumes a lot more oxygen than walking."

What the Numbers Show

I was still gathering my resources for a retort when a new article crossed my desk, and changed my cosmos. In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)

Swain was right! The investigators at Syracuse didn't explain why their results differed from a simplistic interpretation of Newton's Laws of Motion, but I figured it out with help from Swain and Ray Moss, Ph.D., of Furman University. Running and walking aren't as comparable as I had imagined. When you walk, you keep your legs mostly straight, and your center of gravity rides along fairly smoothly on top of your legs. In running, we actually jump from one foot to the other. Each jump raises our center of gravity when we take off, and lowers it when we land, since we bend the knee to absorb the shock. This continual rise and fall of our weight requires a tremendous amount of Newtonian force (fighting gravity) on both takeoff and landing.

Now that you understand why running burns 50 percent more calories per mile than walking, I hate to tell you that it's a mostly useless number. Sorry. We mislead ourselves when we talk about the total calorie burn (TCB) of exercise rather than the net calorie burn (NCB). To figure the NCB of any activity, you must subtract the resting metabolic calories your body would have burned, during the time of the workout, even if you had never gotten off the sofa.

You rarely hear anyone talk about the NCB of workouts, because this is America, dammit, and we like our numbers big and bold. Subtraction is not a popular activity. Certainly not among the infomercial hucksters and weight-loss gurus who want to promote exercise schemes. "It's bizarre that you hear so much about the gross calorie burn instead of the net," says Swain.

"It could keep people from realizing why they're having such a hard time losing weight."

Thanks to the Syracuse researchers, we now know the relative NCB of running a mile in 9:30 versus walking the same mile in 19:00. Their male subjects burned 105 calories running, 52 walking; the women, 91 and 43. That is, running burns twice as many net calories per mile as walking. And since you can run two miles in the time it takes to walk one mile, running burns four times as many net calories per hour as walking.

Run Slow or Walk Fast?

I didn't come here to bash walking, however. Walking is an excellent form of exercise that builds aerobic fitness, strengthens bones, and burns lots of calories. A study released in early 2004 showed that the Amish take about six times as many steps per day as adults in most American communities, and have about 87-percent lower rates of obesity.

In fact, I had read years ago that fast walking burns more calories than running at the same speed. Now was the time to test this hypothesis. Wearing a heart-rate monitor, I ran on a treadmill for two minutes at 3.0 mph (20 minutes per mile), and at 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 mph (10:55 per mile). After a 10-minute rest to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I repeated the same thing walking. Here's my running vs. walking heart rate at the end of each two-minute stint: 3.0 (99/81), 3.5 (104/85), 4.0 (109/94), 4.5 (114/107), 5.0 (120/126), 5.5 (122/145). My conclusion: Running is harder than walking at paces slower than 12-minutes-per-mile. At faster paces, walking is harder than running.

How to explain this? It's not easy, except to say that walking at very fast speeds forces your body to move in ways it wasn't designed to move. This creates a great deal of internal "friction" and inefficiency, which boosts heart rate, oxygen consumption, and calorie burn. So, as Jon Stewart might say, "Walking fast...good. Walking slow...uh, not so much."
The bottom line: Running is a phenomenal calorie-burning exercise. In public-health terms--that is, in the fight against obesity--it's even more important that running is a low-cost, easy-to-do, year-round activity. Walking doesn't burn as many calories, but it remains a terrific exercise. As David Swain says, "The new research doesn't mean that walking burns any fewer calories than it used to. It just means that walkers might have to walk a little more, or eat a little less, to hit their weight goal."

What's the Burn? A Calorie Calculator
You can use the formulas below to determine your calorie-burn while running and walking. The "Net Calorie Burn" measures calories burned, minus basal metabolism. Scientists consider this the best way to evaluate the actual calorie-burn of any exercise. The walking formulas apply to speeds of 3 to 4 mph. At 5 mph and faster, walking burns more calories than running.
	Your Total Calorie Burn/Mile	Your Net Calorie Burn/Mile
Running	.75 x your weight (in lbs.)	.63 x your weight
Walking	.53 x your weight	.30 x your weight
Adapted from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004.

[Pedaling Fool]

I agree JAK, it's complicated and I haven't figured it out either, it's just an art for me. What kills me about everything that talks about calories burned is that they don't talk about when you exercise your body gets more efficient, but this article at least mentions it, pretty interesting: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-l...-0?page=single

That was the wrong article I was thinking of, but it's still a good one at showing misinformation out there on calories burned. This is the article I was thinking of, no real depth, but it's very important thing to understand and this is a major part of why you can't trust all these calories burned calculators out there. BTW, I know it's Women's Health Mag, but I only read the articles

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitne...to-lose-weight

Run Less, Lose More Fat

This simple but strategic running workout will help you shape up and shed pounds in minimal mileage



If you walk into a gym anywhere in America, you'll see rows of women sweating it out on treadmills. Stop in again months later, and many of those same women won't look that much slimmer, despite the countless hours they've spent pounding away on that moving belt.

Here's why: Most people operate under the assumption that the more they run, the more weight they'll lose. That's true, but only to a point. Running is an incredibly effective and efficient form of exercise for burning calories. (You burn about 8.5 calories a minute when moving at a comfortable pace.) Problem is, the more miles you log, the more efficient your body becomes at running and the fewer calories it burns, says Wayne Westcott, Ph.D., fitness research director at Quincy College in Massachusetts.

In other words, you'll initially drop some pounds, but your progress will flatline as soon as your body adjusts to your exercise regimen. Plus, running long distances on a regular basis takes a physical toll (in the form of injuries, like runner's knee) and can seriously dampen your enthusiasm. Ultimately, all that pain and boredom can cause many people to burn out and give up.

Thankfully, there is a better (and easier) way. By learning how to make your runs more efficient at burning fat (by running with more intensity and by making your body stronger), you can get more benefits in less time, says Andrew Kastor, a running coach in Mammoth Lakes, California. You'll still need to run three to five days a week (depending on which of the two programs you decide to follow), but rarely for more than 20 minutes a pop. That's not so bad, right?

Sneak in Some Speed

If you work out, you've probably heard of intervals--short bursts of intense exercise with periods of recovery in between. Here's why they work: When you chug along at a comfortable pace (as most people do), your body gets energy easily from the oxygen you inhale. But once you switch into high gear, your muscles start working harder to process that O2, so they expend extra energy recruiting other chemicals in the body (adenosine-triphosphate and phosphocreatine, in case you're interested) to get the job done.

"Your body likes to be on cruise control, because that's where it's most gas efficient," explains Westcott. "But when you push on the gas pedal, as you do in intervals, your body becomes less efficient and has to burn more calories to do the activity."

And these quick-but-killer efforts may be the closest thing you'll find to a magic calorie-burning bullet. You not only log less sweat time (which is kinder to your body) but also continue to incinerate calories at an increased rate even during the walking or jogging recovery periods, says Westcott.

The body-slimming benefits of intervals don't end there. Your metabolism logs serious OT after your run too. In a study in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, women who ran hard for two minutes followed by three minutes at a low intensity torched more calories in the 24 hours following their sweat sessions than those who did slow, steady mileage. They also lost 4 percent of their body fat in the weeks that followed, while the continuous-pace group didn't lose any. That might not sound like a huge number, but "it's enough to see a noticeable change in the mirror," says lead study author Craig
Broeder, Ph.D., an exercise consultant in Naperville, Illinois.

Intervals come in a variety of sizes, and you can count on the fat-melting effects no matter how long an interval you do. "It's best to mix and match short, medium, and long intervals to keep your body guessing," says Westcott.

Devote one day a week to one of the calorie-crushing regimens below, says Kastor. Warm up and cool down with five to 10 minutes of slow jogging or fast walking. For the most slimming results, switch up your workout--don't just stick with the interval routine that feels easiest. (You can totally do this as a treadmill program, too.)

Quickies

Find a flat section of road, or hit the track or treadmill, and speed up to a hard but sustainable effort (really huffing and puffing) for 15 seconds. Jog or walk to recover for 60 seconds. Repeat six times.

Beginner: Build up to 10 intervals over eight weeks.

Seasoned Runner: Build up to 12.
Short Repeats

Find a flat section of road, or hit the track or treadmill, and speed up to a hard but sustainable effort for 30 seconds. Jog or walk to recover for 60 seconds. Repeat four times.
Beginner: Build up to 10 intervals over eight weeks.

Seasoned Runner: Build up to 12.
Long Repeats

Beginner: Run a quarter of a mile (equal to one loop of a track) on flat or rolling terrain at a hard but sustainable effort, and recover by jogging or walking for two minutes. Repeat four times, building up to eight.

Seasoned Runner: Change the distance to half a mile (two loops of a track).

[Slo-go'en]

Barring medical issues, how many calories you burn is directly related to the amount and type of exercise you get every day.

I was a very active hiker in my mid 30's and weighed about 175 pounds. When I started to run out of money and could no longer afford to be a full time mountain bum, (but it was a great 5 year run) I settled down and started to gain weight. I was still fairly active, but not active enough. By the time I was 50, I was getting a noticable "beer belly". That's when I decided it was time to start doing long distance hiking again. Doing at least one 6 week hike a year in the spring and a lot of shorter ones during the summer is now enough to keep me in the 180 to 190 pound range. Then I sit around all winter and put on pounds to take off again in the spring and so it goes...