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 :eek: ;)) 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. :p

[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.
18328

[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. :confused:... 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-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning-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 (http://www.runnersworld.com/person/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-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning-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:D

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/running-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 (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/running-for-weightloss) 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 (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/fat-burners)--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 (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/start-running) 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 (http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/treadmill-workout), 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...

[Pedaling Fool]

....Then I sit around all winter and put on pounds to take off again in the spring and so it goes...You may want to rethink that strategy, especially as you age it becomes more and more important to keep healthy. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/fitness/exercise/2010-10-28-running-marathon_N.htm

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/keep-weight-off





I agree with the below quote and it's especially true as we age. Don't over do it, but also don't under do it; the engine needs to be running on a regular basis in a common sense manner.


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!

[scree]

If I ate only when hungry, I'd never stop eating. I have to force myself to stop eating and very carefully monitor quantities, and I'm generally always very hungry.

[Slo-go'en]

You may want to rethink that strategy, especially as you age it becomes more and more important to keep healthy.

I don't put on THAT much weight, maybe 5-7 pounds. I typically top out at about 190 these days.

[The Solemates]

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!

then i'm surprised i aint dead :)

[shelb]

At one point, I was sure I had "slow metabolism," and I talked to my doctor. He checked my thyroid, and it was normal. His suggestion: exercise. When I started exercising (yes, I actually got up over an hour earlier than usual 5 days a week), I lost weight - or as some would say - my metabolism speeded up! Pounds melted off!

When I stopped exercising - funny thing happened.... My metabolism slowed down... and the pounds came back on.

[Pedaling Fool]

At one point, I was sure I had "slow metabolism," and I talked to my doctor. He checked my thyroid, and it was normal. His suggestion: exercise. When I started exercising (yes, I actually got up over an hour earlier than usual 5 days a week), I lost weight - or as some would say - my metabolism speeded up! Pounds melted off!

When I stopped exercising - funny thing happened.... My metabolism slowed down... and the pounds came back on.It's not that easy for me. I have always exercised, both at the gym and I've been riding a bike as my primary form of transportation for over 25 years, at one point 50-mile round trip when I lived in Virginia Beach and I was still gaining weight.

[JAK]

Winter is a good time to try and lose weight. I think we need to create artificial periods of scarcity, not for prolonged periods, but maybe for 1-3 months at a time. Not fasting, but losing up to 1% of your body fat per day but still eating at least 50% of your daily calorie burn.

[Pedaling Fool]

Winter is a good time to try and lose weight. I think we need to create artificial periods of scarcity, not for prolonged periods, but maybe for 1-3 months at a time. Not fasting, but losing up to 1% of your body fat per day but still eating at least 50% of your daily calorie burn.Yeah, lessening calories is generally a good thing, because it's so easy to eat for us nowadays that we don't know how much we're actually overeating, creating harm to our system. However, since my hike I've learned that this is somewhat of a growing fad amongst some (Calorie Restriction Diet), but probably won't ever go mainstream since very much like other diets they can't say, "eat as much as you want...".

I first saw it on PBS (I love watching PBS, it makes me feel so smart :D), but I really do believe those people take it to extremes in an unhealthy way; some look lethargic and others just look weak and could easily break a bone if they fell. Bottomline, if you want to be healthy you got to workout in a serious way, not just some crap of 30 minutes a day, 3 times per week on some low-impact machine, like so many commercials say is all that's needed.

Here's one example of frail-looking Calorie Restriciton practitioners. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sVEkYwgsA Fast forward to the 4-minute point in the video and you'll see them walking, they look like skeletons.


And here's some bad news for them silly practitioners: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/08/30/160266307/subtracting-calories-may-not-add-years-to-life

[RodentWhisperer]

This is just my idea, but as near as I can tell, everyone's bodies are so different that believing there is one cure-all diet that everyone absolutely must follow is just wrong. As the ancient Greeks said: "Know thyself."

[Sman]

There is one sure way to lose or gain ------------ divorce = weight loss ----- Marriage= weight gain

[T.S.Kobzol]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/08/y3esuba3.jpg


My contribution. Not sure the Photo will show.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[Tinker]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/08/y3esuba3.jpg
My contribution. Not sure the Photo will show.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2



.............Speaks louder than words - welcome to modern day America.

I figured it out -

I eat more and exercise less and get fat.

I exercise more and eat less and I lose weight.

No rocket science. :)

[shelb]

There is one sure way to lose or gain ------------ divorce = weight loss ----- Marriage= weight gain

That is the truth!

[MuddyWaters]

If you want to realize how disgustingly FAT americans are, spend some time in other countries, then come back.
Little has to do with "metabolism"
It has everything to do with taking in more calories than you burn.

Its non-stop 24 hr access to food and especially calorie -dense fast food and snack food items, soft drinks, etc.
Even many of our "poor" are ridiculously overweight.

[RodentWhisperer]

Even many of our "poor" are ridiculously overweight.

And that's largely due to the fact that the crappiest food is the cheapest. It frankly doesn't cost much to produce processed foods that store interminably in a freezer. Packaging can be scrimped upon when there are massive amounts of preservatives (which can be produced more cheaply than foods) added to what's inside. Top it off with a blitzkreig of advertising telling us how certain foods/drinks are parts of the American lifestyle.

[Pedaling Fool]

The U.S. is not the fattest nation, if you look at the table on the second page we're at No. 9 (granted that was a 2007 report, but I'm pretty confident we're still not the fattest, especially in light of the fact that obesity is becoming a global problem). http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html

And much of Europe is getting fatter, especially in Greece and the U.K., but pretty much all of the EU is experiencing an increase, especially amoung the kids.

Even China is having problems http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/china_06-01.html


Pretty much the entire globe is experiencing this problem, probably mostly due to globalization and coming out of poverty, but not entirely; some cultures actually see fat people as attractive for various reasons. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/global-obesity-rates-doubled-1980/story?id=12833461

[T.S.Kobzol]

I wouldn't be by any chance kids around the world sitting in front of a computer socializing with friends? The world is becoming sedentary. For the kids, what they see on the computer or game console screen is more fun and more beautiful than what they experience outhside of their house.


The U.S. is not the fattest nation, if you look at the table on the second page we're at No. 9 (granted that was a 2007 report, but I'm pretty confident we're still not the fattest, especially in light of the fact that obesity is becoming a global problem). http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html

And much of Europe is getting fatter, especially in Greece and the U.K., but pretty much all of the EU is experiencing an increase, especially amoung the kids.

Even China is having problems http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/china_06-01.html


Pretty much the entire globe is experiencing this problem, probably mostly due to globalization and coming out of poverty, but not entirely; some cultures actually see fat people as attractive for various reasons. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/global-obesity-rates-doubled-1980/story?id=12833461



Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[Pedaling Fool]

I wouldn't be by any chance kids around the world sitting in front of a computer socializing with friends? The world is becoming sedentary. For the kids, what they see on the computer or game console screen is more fun and more beautiful than what they experience outhside of their house.





Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2Yep, that's part of the story.

[RodentWhisperer]

And a sad one at that.

[Rasty]

The U.S. is not the fattest nation, if you look at the table on the second page we're at No. 9 (granted that was a 2007 report, but I'm pretty confident we're still not the fattest, especially in light of the fact that obesity is becoming a global problem). http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html

And much of Europe is getting fatter, especially in Greece and the U.K., but pretty much all of the EU is experiencing an increase, especially amoung the kids.

Even China is having problems http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/china_06-01.html


Pretty much the entire globe is experiencing this problem, probably mostly due to globalization and coming out of poverty, but not entirely; some cultures actually see fat people as attractive for various reasons. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/global-obesity-rates-doubled-1980/story?id=12833461

Except for America and Kuwait the top 10 are all Pacific Island countries which have drastically changed their diet from Taro and Fish to Rice and meat. Thousands of years of evolution without rice in your diet will have that effect. Kuwait is filled with the very rich who import almost all manual labor. I wonder if the Non-Kuwaiti's are even calculated in those numbers.

America has the food choices to eat healthy even for the poor but we as the average choose to drink 2 liters of soda and eat until we are ready to puke every meal. Restaurants try nutritious items on menus and guess what happens? Very few customers order them. Now add cheese and fried onions and we have a top seller.

[redfox1939]

Vegetables can also rev up the metabolism, and one of the best vegetables to eat is dark green spinach. Fiber such as whole grains, oatmeal and almonds also boosts metabolism. Fruits like blueberries and apples are wonderful foods that speed the metabolism. Natural yogurt does wonders for the digestive tract. Green tea, coffee and water help with hunger control and also boost the metabolism.

[JAK]

Big fan of spinach also, and lots of green herbs in soup. High in protein, A, C, Iron, and Calcium.

Dreaming up a new diet scheme. Doesn't matter what it is really as just about anything will work for awhile, as long as I'm paying attention. So what I am thinking is a diet where I get a minimal number of calories per day, like 1200 or so, PLUS control/reward calories for every pound I lose, like say 2400, so I don't lose too fast and I'm encouraged to exercise more. So if I was losing 0.3 pounds per day on average, I would be eating 1920 calories and burning about 3000 calories in total. To lose 0.5 pounds per day I would eat 2400 calories but would need to burn 4100 calories per day. If I was more idle, burning say 1800 calories per day, I would get to eat only 1440 calories and lose only 0.1 pounds per day. Of course, like any scheme, it falls apart when my weight drops mostly through water and I reward myself with food I haven't burned, so I would need to be careful to spread my reward/control food over a few days.

Then there's the holidays, and you have to start all over at some point.

[imscotty]

It is an infection John Gault...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0b7af978-493a-11e2-9225-00144feab49a.html#axzz2FVNROYMs

[Pedaling Fool]

It is an infection John Gault...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0b7af978-493a-11e2-9225-00144feab49a.html#axzz2FVNROYMs

Sounds like a study to justify the development of more drugs by the pharmaceutical industry; should be a boom for the industry. People will eat them like candy like all the OTC drugs currently available. And it gives them another crutch to lean on, so they don't have to assume personal responsibility.

The larger the population (7 billion and growing) the more idiots to make money off of.

[RodentWhisperer]

It is an infection John Gault...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0b7af978-493a-11e2-9225-00144feab49a.html#axzz2FVNROYMs

What's more, that's not a study showing "infection" per se, but rather a correlation between obesity and compromised richness of one's gut flora. The probiotics people have been working with this for years.

[Wise Old Owl]

It's all snake oil18481 Let's just blame the McDonalds burger (and the rise of beer consumption) and be done with it It's your choice to eat it or not ... Seriously the flora in the gut causes obesity.... nonsense.

[imscotty]

What's more, that's not a study showing "infection" per se, but rather a correlation between obesity and compromised richness of one's gut flora. The probiotics people have been working with this for years.

Excellent point that correlation does not imply causation Rodent Whisperer. Yet there is a growing body of scientific research that indicated that certain viral infections could lead to obesity in both animals and humans. Here is an abstract for a paper supporting this...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908526

Here is an article that summarizes the research...

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/2092/

I am not implying that this is the only cause of obesity. Clearly most people should be exercising more and eating less. But the human body is a complex system and there is much we do not know.

[Pedaling Fool]

I don't doubt the existence of certain microbes that have this effect on the body's metabolism. However, my point was that I see this as another excuse for people that say they can't lose weight, i.e. it's not their fault and there is a market waiting to open to address that BS thought. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people that are fat put themselves in that position, period.

Everyone has lost weight that participated on the show Biggest Loser.

[imscotty]

Seriously the flora in the gut causes obesity.... nonsense.

I respectfully disagree WOO. Two groups of lab mice fed the same diet. One group purposely infected with an obesity causing virus, the other not. One group of mice becomes obese and the other does not. Some of the research on lab animals seems pretty clear cut. Admittedly there is still little research on the infectious nature of obesity in humans.

18482

The obese are often stigmatized as lacking willpower and being mentally weak. However, there appear to be several other factors that come into play, genetics, epigenetics and perhaps other unknown environmental factors.

[Wise Old Owl]

And I had two male ferrets - for 7 years, one was testicular challenged the other had nuts... They ate the same food and water and shared the same box and the one with nuts became fat...

I have a different take on all this .... from a history of reality.

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/photo/images/new-53.gif

As a child I remember seeing images of men on early black and white Tv in 60's and there were no snacks, people ate at home Women cooked a typical meal that was low sodium, low sugar - meat potatoes and two vegetables. We didn't snack... we had fruit pies and ice cream. Nobody was fat. As kids we had chores and we worked, played, did sports outside.

This is more about the current society values... We sit in front of xbox for hours or the computer ... we are sedentary, and then we Hike. It's not the same -

[imscotty]

However, my point was that I see this as another excuse for people that say they can't lose weight, i.e. it's not their fault and there is a market waiting to open to address that BS thought. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people that are fat put themselves in that position, period.

Point taken John Gault. I do not disagree. But the population suddenly loosing its willpower did not cause the ever-increasing obesity problem in this country. If we are to improve the situation we must identify what has caused the shift. Certainly a change in lifestyles is a major one. People need to turn off the computer and get outside more. But I believe that our changing diet (high fructose corn syrup, high carbs), epigenetics and yes perhaps infectious agents also come into play.

In the interest of disclosure I need to lose about 30 lbs. I blame my love of beer, a lack of willpower, and not enough exercise for my condition :)

[Wise Old Owl]

IM Scotty - my wife loves that you used a avatar of Barnabus. - Here is a scientist that makes sense... Another WB member a couple of years ago found this for me... Here is a suggestion ... open a second browser window and let this run and just listen to it ... he does take a while to close the point.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSeSTq-N4U4

[Drybones]

Here is an abstract for a paper supporting this...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908526

Here is an article that summarizes the research...

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/2092/

I am not implying that this is the only cause of obesity. Clearly most people should be exercising more and eating less. But the human body is a complex system and there is much we do not know.

Because it's written it must be true. I truly believe scientists of old tried to find truth, those now try to find support for thier opinion. Just write a paper saying you're 6'1", 177 and it must be true.

[Drybones]

And I had two male ferrets - for 7 years, one was testicular challenged the other had nuts... They ate the same food and water and shared the same box and the one with nuts became fat...

I have a different take on all this .... from a history of reality.

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/photo/images/new-53.gif

As a child I remember seeing images of men on early black and white Tv in 60's and there were no snacks, people ate at home Women cooked a typical meal that was low sodium, low sugar - meat potatoes and two vegetables. We didn't snack... we had fruit pies and ice cream. Nobody was fat. As kids we had chores and we worked, played, did sports outside.

This is more about the current society values... We sit in front of xbox for hours or the computer ... we are sedentary, and then we Hike. It's not the same -

You don't see any fat people in that photo. I saw an old photo of my mom and the group she worked with, no one was fat, of course they worked all day, came home and worked in the garden to raise the food we ate.

[WingedMonkey]

I haven't been to a doctor in more that 20 years (other than as a volunteer for some research studies). I doubt I'm gonna get health advice off of Whiteblaze from folks that are constantly at the doctor or under the knife for one ailment after another.
Guess I'm just lucky.

:sun

[Drybones]

I respectfully disagree WOO. Two groups of lab mice fed the same diet. One group purposely infected with an obesity causing virus, the other not. One group of mice becomes obese and the other does not. Some of the research on lab animals seems pretty clear cut. Admittedly there is still little research on the infectious nature of obesity in humans.

18482

The obese are often stigmatized as lacking willpower and being mentally weak. However, there appear to be several other factors that come into play, genetics, epigenetics and perhaps other unknown environmental factors.

I agree it's much harder for some than others to control weight but it can be done. My wife says she can smell food and gain weight. After having three babies she gained a lot of weight, became very unhappy, started seeing a shrink, I went along with it for a while and finally told her what she needed, get a pair of running shoe and a good Bible, she did, read and studied the Bible and started out walking slow, then walking fast, then jogging, then running, then winning road races, has 10 trophies, lost the weight, now healthy in both body and mind. The shoes addressed the physical needs, the Bible addressed the emotional needs.

[Drybones]

I haven't been to a doctor in more that 20 years (other than as a volunteer for some research studies). I doubt I'm gonna get health advice off of Whiteblaze from folks that are constantly at the doctor or under the knife for one ailment after another.
Guess I'm just lucky.

:sun

My only occassion for hospitals over the past 63 years until yesterday was two motorcycle accidents. The wife finally nagged me enough to have a physical, part of which was a colonastropy, the doc said it was perfect, now the wife can say she's married to a perfect a$$ hole.

[RodentWhisperer]

...the human body is a complex system and there is much we do not know.

I couldn't have put it better myself, imscotty.

The gut biome and its species richness is an interesting (and some would say, Earth-shattering) area of study. We've known for a long time that our guts are filled with microflora, but we've only started thinking/studying it as if it were an ecological system. What's really going to change our way of thinking is that the current studies are (more or less) telling us that we have a genuinely symbiotic relationship with those microflora-- that we help them in much the same ways they help us, and that if either party in the relationship compromises the other, both suffer.

Bear in mind, of course, that I'm no MD, and I don't play one on TV. I only work with bacteriologists.

[cabbagehead]

It means you're capable of building more muscle than if you had a fast metabolism.

[Pedaling Fool]

Another reason I just keep it simple and eat all in moderation and vigorous exercise. And Mcdonald's double cheeseburger really are “the cheapest, most nutritious, and bountiful food that has ever existed in human history” :D

http://www.livescience.com/39097-bmi-not-accurate-health-measure.html (http://www.livescience.com/39097-bmi-not-accurate-health-measure.html)


BMI Not a Good Measure of Healthy Body Weight, Researchers Argue


When it comes to defining what body weight is considered healthy, one type of measurement does not fithttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/#) all, some scientists say.

Body mass index is the standard metric for determining who is normal-weight, overweight and obese, but BMI is not an accurate measure of fat (http://www.livescience.com/38868-eight-steps-to-healthiest-weight.html), and doesn't explain the causes of poor health, scientists argue in an editorial today (Aug. 22) in the journal Science.

Obesity (http://www.livescience.com/34787-obesity-high-bmi-causes-diabetes-heart-disease.html) can be a major risk for diabetes, heart diseasehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/#) and death, yet paradoxically, some studies suggest being overweight can improve survival of chronic diseases.

"Most studies depend on BMI, and we know it's not a very accurate measure," said Dr. Rexford Ahima, a medical professor at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, and co-author of the editorial. [8 Reasons Our Waistlines Are Expanding (http://www.livescience.com/13081-8-reasons-obesitiy-americans-fat.html)]

A person's BMI is calculated as her weight in kilograms divided by her height in meters, squared. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered "normal," a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is "overweight," and a BMI greater than 30 is "obese."

People with BMIs higher than 30 are at an increased risk of dying from heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other diseases, many studies have shown. But several recent studies suggest that in some cases, a high BMI could actually protect a person from dying of heart failure, kidney failure and other chronic diseases.

When someone has a chronic illness, having more fat could possibly provide additional energy reserves. And in some cases, a low BMI may be a result of a person having an illness.

The health risks and benefits of obesity (http://www.livescience.com/6026-fat-butts-healthy.html) have generated "a lot of sniping back and forth between different groups of researchers," Ahima told LiveScience.

The problem stems from the fact that BMI is an inaccurate measure of health, Ahima said.

For one thing, BMI doesn't take into account fat, and it doesn't indicate where fat is distributed on the body. Belly fat (fat around the abdominal organs) increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease and death, whereas peripheral fat (fat beneath the skin elsewhere in the body) may be more innocuous, studies suggest. BMI also fails to account for differences in race, gender and age.

So why is the measurement so widely used? "Because it's simple," Ahima said, adding that it's easy to weigh people and measure their height. For most people, BMI provides a "reasonable measure" of body fat, but is not accurate for athletes (who weigh more because of muscle) or older people who have lost height, he said.

Other methods of measuring body fat also have their pros and cons. CT and MRI scans can accurately measure body fat, but are usually very expensive. DEXA scans, normally used to measure bone density, can also be used to measure body fat, but are costly as well. Measuring levels of the hormone leptin can also be an indicator of body fat.

There's no single number that can represent a healthy weight, Ahima said. It depends on starting weight, genetics and gender, among other factors.

Obesity is a complex disorder — it's not just having too much fat, he said. It's important to consider fat in relation to the amount of muscle.

And scientists need to start looking more closely at cause-and-effect in body fat and disease, Ahima said. "What is it about being obese that makes one unhealthy or healthy? We need to understand the molecular mechanisms."

[Pedaling Fool]

Yet another reason to be very skeptical of scientific studies/reports on health and nutrition. http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/40-years-of-government-nutrition-data-may-be-flawed.html

Excerpt:

"For forty years, the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_and_Nutrition_Examination_Survey) (NHANES) has collected data on the caloric intake of Americans, answering the simple and important question of how much food we eat. This research has in turn been used to instruct public health policy. NHANES is actually the basis for national standards of height, weight, and blood pressure, and its findings are often used to develop programs in the public battle against obesity.

But there's just one "tiny" problem. According to an analysis (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0076632) conducted by exercise scientist Edward Archer at the University of South Carolina, NHANES is very likely invalid. And it's for a simple reason that almost anybody could point out: All of the data it collects on caloric intake is self-reported.

Try to remember precisely what you ate over the past twenty-four hours and you'll see why this is a problem. People aren't only inept at estimating how many calories (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/youre-eating-more-calories-than-you-think/) are in the foods they eat, they're also bad at recalling what they consumed and when.

With this in mind, Archer performed calculations merely to gauge if NHANES' data is physiologically plausible. In 1991, a team of physiologists determined that average (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1810719), free-living individuals must consume at minimum at least 35% more calories than their basal metabolic rate (BMR) -- the amount of calories they expend resting -- in order to maintain their weight and health. This accounts for the energy people need to perform everyday activities, from just walking around, to playing sports, to gardening, etc. Archer used a well-established equation to estimate the BMR of individuals in the NHANES study, multiplied those values by 1.35, and compared them to the self-reported energy intakes in NHANES. What did that comparison yield? The majority of respondents, totaling 28,993 men and 34,369 women, reported eating less calories than even the bare minimum necessary to survive!

Judging by how much Americans' waistlines have been infamously expanding, the respondents' eating estimations are obviously wrong. To Archer, it reinforces what previous research has clearly shown: Americans severely under-report how much food they eat, and this has affected decades of nutrition data."

[Tuckahoe]

It is always prudent to be skeptical and to allow the body of evidence to fully develop. My issues though are less with studies and more so with the garbage passed off as science journalism.

As for this particular study my first reaction was "we'll duh!" One thing I learned that helped me was to keep an accurate and honest diary of what I eat. Once I started to do that and control my portions it was very easy to see just how out of hand portions have become. Today's kids meal was st one time a reasonable adult portion.

[Rolls Kanardly]

I have read articles where they say 'We as the human species have lost the ability to understand a lot of the signals our own bodies send to us.' Sometimes we interpret a signal so incorrectly that we consume when all we need is to hydrate. There are times when if I am thinking correctly I choose a drink of water and the urge subsides and I do not eat. Too bad I can not do this all the time. 'Rolls'

[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 :eek: ;)) 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.
Interesting article that I can connect with; I still maintain that having a slow metabolism (if there is such a thing) is a good thing. It must be my African-American heritage:eek::D


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219131039.htm

[Son Driven]

Since I got off the trail, I find myself hungry all the time. I only eat fruits vegetables, lean meat, and whole grains. However, I have managed to put back on all the weight I lost on the trail. It is like my body is still demanding the 4k-5k daily diet it needed on the trail, while living a 2k calorie per day off trail life. I need to boost my activity, and reduce my calorie intake.

[Meriadoc]

My metabolism responds very quickly to my body's activity level as long as I feed it appropriate amounts.


Since I got off the trail, I find myself hungry all the time. I only eat fruits vegetables, lean meat, and whole grains. However, I have managed to put back on all the weight I lost on the trail. It is like my body is still demanding the 4k-5k daily diet it needed on the trail, while living a 2k calorie per day off trail life. I need to boost my activity, and reduce my calorie intake.

Maybe a nutritionist can chime in here:
When I got off the trail I had no hunger problems. My appetite dropped to normal levels in a day or two. I think this has to do with the way I ate for my thru.

I carried enough food that I wasn't starving at the end of the day. I was able to polish off immense amounts of town food, but I didn't really need to. I only gorged in town because I could and I do love eating. Then leaving town I would eat less for the first day or two until my body started asking for more food again. But I never (except for a few food mismanagement times) got to the point where I was immensely hungry all the time. I ate enough.

In my experience, eating enough let my body avoid starvation mode and allowed it to adjust better to the activity demands, including the sudden drop in activity at the end of my hike. ****

****Edit: I tried the 'carry less food than needed and gorge in town' method but found that my energy level would not remain constant and my body was unhappy.

[Pedaling Fool]

Do you tend to gain more weight in winter? Seems there's an impulse to eat more in cold weather. Now that you know this, no excuses...stop eating :D http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/17/forget-winter-blues-beware-winter-munchies/

Excerpt:

"My wife says that she always knows when we will have a very cold winter. The way she determines this is by noticing the animals – especially squirrels and foxes – will start eating more and fatten themselves up before the full force of winter comes.
Of course, my wife comes from the forests in Sweden, so she had a lot of time on her hands observing animals.

However, there is a lot of truth to that. But does this fattening up process also apply to humans? The answer is ‘Yes.’ We tend to eat more in the cold weather months."



And don't think you can make it up by drinking diet drinks ;) http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/17/overweight-americans-who-pick-diet-drinks-eat-more-food-study-finds/

Excerpt:


"Heavy Americans who drink diet beverages rather than those sweetened with sugar appear to eat more, according to a study released on Thursday that raised questions about the role lower-calorie drinks play in helping people lose weight."

[Hot Flash]

There is such a thing as slow metabolism, but it is very rare. If you are overweight and you blame it on a "slow metabolism" you are almost certainly wrong. Obesity is nearly always a matter of overeating and under-exercising.

[HikerMom58]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-microbes-in-your-gut-may-be-making-you-fat-or-keeping-you-thin/2013/12/06/6f186da2-488b-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html

Check this out!

[George]

ok, 4 pages of this and no one has pointed out the obvious BS of the quoted calorie numbers for walking as they apply to the activity we are all here to discuss

at 54 calories per mile, 20 miles per day / 1100 calories per day... yeah right - even add 1500 per day for a base line is 2600 - so supposedly you can hike 20 every day on 2600 calories without weight loss - I call BS

[Pedaling Fool]

Need more messages like here http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/825410

You're fat, because you eat too much, it really is that simple.

Glad I learned that lesson, but still despite the knowledge I have to be careful around food. Hunger just sucks, it's like being cold, it's hard on your mental disposition, but you can learn to accept it.

[illabelle]

Need more messages like here http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/825410

You're fat, because you eat too much, it really is that simple.

Glad I learned that lesson, but still despite the knowledge I have to be careful around food. Hunger just sucks, it's like being cold, it's hard on your mental disposition, but you can learn to accept it.

link requires log-in. cannot view. :(

[rocketsocks]

Up until about maybe 5 or 6 years ago I could eat whatever and how much I wanted and not gain an oz. well those days are gone, and good rid-ins, it's not healthy eating. That said, I look at food now and gain weight...crazy! I for the most part eat one well balanced meal a day, and several snacks throughout the day, and I still am gaining weight, this may be part of the problem...my body is in conserve mode with just the one meal, cause it doesn't know when it's gonna get it's next meal...I dunno, but I do believe it really is all about calories in for me....ugh! and getting enough exorcise, however there are exceptions to that rule where some peoples body just gain weight for other reasons...medical condition and such.

[mcgrabo]

Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean, and so, between them both, you see, they licked the platter clean. That's all I have to offer. Be well.

[rocketsocks]

Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean, and so, between them both, you see, they licked the platter clean. That's all I have to offer. Be well.
I've not heard that in 45 years.

[MJGreen]

ok, 4 pages of this and no one has pointed out the obvious BS of the quoted calorie numbers for walking as they apply to the activity we are all here to discuss

at 54 calories per mile, 20 miles per day / 1100 calories per day... yeah right - even add 1500 per day for a base line is 2600 - so supposedly you can hike 20 every day on 2600 calories without weight loss - I call BS
That is calories burned while walking wearing just basic exercise clothes. Add 30 pounds of carry weight and a difficult terrain and I'm sure that number spikes.

[Pedaling Fool]

link requires log-in. cannot view. :(
That's strange, there was a video, but I'll just paste the text below.

BTW, if you hit this link it should work, it would be the top link https://www.google.com/#q=medscape%3A+It%27s+not+your+genes

It's Not Genes: People Are Fat Because They Eat Too Much


Hi. I am Art Caplan, from the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Langone Medical Center in New York.

Why are your patients fat? Why are people fat generally? Struggling with weight is a problem. I personally have done better with it lately, but it is a challenge. We all know we are in the middle of an obesity epidemic in the United States. Indeed, worldwide obesity is an increasing problem.

If you look at the medical literature, the answer is clear. The problem is in our genes. Again and again, in media reports and in articles that catch the attention of editors at the most prominent medical journals, the answer to why we are all fat is that we have bad genes.

Think about it. You go to a cocktail party. You are chatting with people and you start talking about weight. The person says, "I'm one of those high metabolizers (or low metabolizers)," hinting that there is a genetic or biological basis for their size. Or people will say to me, "I must have inherited bad genes. I just can't seem to keep weight off."

We love the genetic explanation. That is why it was so interesting to see a paper recently in the British Medical Journal [1] (http://javascript<strong></strong>:newshowcontent('active','references');) that looked in a very different, but I believe a more fertile, direction for understanding the obesity problem.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge conducted a very simple study. They wanted to know how many fast-food outlets are in Cambridgeshire, the county that includes Cambridge and the university. They also looked at where people commuted to work, and whether there was any association between going by these fast-food places and obesity and diabetes.

Bad Food, Not Bad Genes

Guess what they found? If you put a bucket of fried chicken out every half-mile along the route people take to work and back, they are fatter. There is a correlation between fast-food outlets and being diabetic or being fat.

The point is this: Genes certainly play a role in how people handle food, but if you live in a culture that overwhelms you with opportunities to eat junk food and fatty food, even the best genes can easily be overwhelmed.

We are that kind of country, too. We promote eating more food. I took a ride recently from Moosic, Pennsylvania, to Wilkes-Barre. Having read this article, I decided to count how many fast-food places I could see from the road in a relatively rural area. The distance was 13 miles. I counted 19 kings, arches, colonels, and so on. Fast food is ubiquitous. Bad food opportunities are everywhere.

If we are going to get a handle on the obesity epidemic, then we need to stop saying, "All you have to do is control your diet, and somehow manage the responsibility that your genes gave you." Telling people they have a genetic basis for obesity is kind of an excuse, or an easy way out.

We also must begin to say, "Hey, those places you drive past, those places that are advertising and marketing? They are dangerous for you. You might want to avoid them." I think we have to ask people and patients, "How often do you go? How often are you eating there? Do you realize that even if a place has a salad on the menu, if you get 3 Big Macs and French fries, it does not matter that a salad is on the menu?"

We must start taking more seriously the dangers that are out in the environment. We also should think about telling our patients that a lot of fast-food promotion and fast-food presence is leading to some of the problems that their kids have.

Maybe a better philosophy is to make it a special treat to go to one of these outlets, rather than going simply because you have run out of ideas about what to do in terms of getting a quick and easy meal. It may be quick. It may be easy. But as this study showed, it is dangerous.

Let us not point the finger of blame at our genes or say, hey, exercise some self-control [without providing some kind of support]. Let us realize that in a world in which temptation is put out all around us, that is a problem we have to discuss with patients too.

I am Art Caplan, from the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center. Thanks for watching.