View Full Version : Your Opinion On Metabolism

03-23-2001, 12:16 PM
I watched a show last night that was studying metabolism in individuals. The study concluded that a large variance in metabolism levels is a myth and insignificant in weight gain or weight loss. The study stated appetite and exercise as the reasons for variance in weight.

I'd like to hear your views on it. No flames, just open discussion.

03-23-2001, 12:58 PM
Well I'm sure someone here can site a 40 page article explaining the scientific view of this, but I'll tell you what I think. I think that there is a wide variety of metabolisms and genetics, and both play a significant role in fat loss or any other attempt of physical alteration. I know fat people who work out like maniacs and eat half of what I eat during the day, EVERY day. Guess what? They're still fat. Guess what else? They're not changing much at all. Why? Well, it's not that they're not exercising, because they are. It's not that they're eating too many calories, because they're not. How else can you explain it? Any slack-jaw hillbilly can see that there is something going on behind the scenes preventing them from getting the results they want...

03-23-2001, 01:14 PM
I reckon it also(i.e. agrees with Gino) has something to do with how much knowledge you have. Gino's example is perfect, the fat people who don't loose weight clearly don't undstand the necessary conditions for fat burning. if they did some research then maybe they'd get somewhere.

03-23-2001, 01:16 PM
If they consume less calories than they burn, they will lose weight. Do you agree with this?

Paul Stagg
03-23-2001, 01:17 PM
What was the variance (or lack therof) based on?

Bodyweight? LBM?

Or was it a general statement (which, on the surface, would appear pretty stupid - my 115 pound fiancee's metabolism isn't the same as mine.)

I thgink if you compare two dudes, both 200 pounds, and both 10% bf, you'll find that their metabolisms are indeed pretty close - That makes sence to me... but I don't know what it has to do with weight loss.

Are they suggesting that fatter people don't necessarily have slower metabolisms than fitter people? I think that would depend on whom you are comparing.

I'm quite certain, for example, that Cakerot (and his 10000 calorie a day diet) has a MUCH faster metabolis than I do, but why would you WANT to compare us? I'm what, 14 years older, 40-50 pounds heavier, and much better looking? What would comparing our metabolisms show?

03-23-2001, 01:22 PM
Notice that Paul put in "and much better looking"


03-23-2001, 01:28 PM
Paul, the study was done with people of different shapes, sizes, age, gender, etc. They also performed studies on identical twins (which was interesting).

What they found was bigger people have a higher metabolism (obviously) - but only slightly. Because of this slight variation in metabolism, they concluded that 'metabolism' plays a non existant role in gaining weight or losing weight. More important were exercise and appetite.

Personally, I think what the study was trying to get at is that people tend to lump all unknowns (body heat, exercise, stress, etc) into 'metabolism' when really actual body metabolism is pretty much the same in everyone (slight variations due to weight ... more weight = bigger/more cells that consume engery).

03-23-2001, 02:02 PM
LOL, Paul, nice one.

Paul Stagg
03-23-2001, 02:15 PM
That is interesting.

I suppose if you remove everything but the metabolic rate at rest, yes, we all are pretty close..

Seems the big variance (using my fiancee and I as examples) would be the energy expended moving our vastly different bodyweights through the day.

So, how does the information in this study apply to you or I?

Isn't the stuff they remove from the equation important?

03-23-2001, 02:44 PM
Of course the other stuff is important to us. I just find the concept interesting. :)

03-23-2001, 02:57 PM
My opinion on metabolism, mine is to damn fast.

forced to increase calories again, the next step is anabolic help :)

chris mason
03-27-2001, 07:20 AM
Maybe they should have concluded that small variances in metabolism can result in large differences in one's ability to lose weight. In other words, who are they to determine whether what they consider to be a minute difference can cause the difference or not? Scientists can often lose sight of the obvious, things like what Paul and Gino mentioned in their posts. There is obviously some difference going on, there are people who can eat a lot more calories than others and not gain weight. So then, what caused it?

Lets's look at the definition of metabolism with regards to humans; Metabolism: Sum total of all of the chemical reactions occuring in body cells, reactions that transform substances into energy or materials the body can use or store by means of anabolism or catabolism.

That pretty much encompasses everything. Obviously, your metabolism can and does vary constantly. When you exercise, some of the reactions speed up. Hormones can affect metabolism and their secretion can and does vary. Anthony asked the question whether eating less calories than you burn will cause weight loss. The answer is that in a controlled circumstance, yes you would. If you eat less than you burn, the energy deficit has to be made up somehow. Whatever way the energy deficit was made up would include the use of stored fat or the breakdown of tissue and the net result would be a loss of weight. The problem is that you cannot accuratlely know if you have eaten less than you have burned, unless your calories are dramatically low. Your body will adjust for the decreased calorie intake by burning less. In other words, it will adapt.

The use of identical twins in the study is still not foolproof. I have heard of studies where identical twins reacted differently to identical exercise. This proves that either identical twins are not as identical as science thinks (genetically), or that the brain (and the varied experiences of the twins) is the variable in identical twins.

chris mason
03-27-2001, 07:22 AM
Cack, you are fuc*ing 15 years old, if you do steroids now you are not nearly as intelligent as you would like to believe!

Paul Stagg
03-27-2001, 07:44 AM
I doubt he's really considering them now, Chris. I think Cack has his head on pretty straight.

03-27-2001, 02:14 PM
Chris, i was just kidding.

chris mason
03-27-2001, 02:34 PM

03-27-2001, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
My opinion on metabolism, mine is to damn fast.

forced to increase calories again, the next step is anabolic help :)

If you say any more stupid sh!t like that i'm gonna report you, slapnuts!! ;)