If you eat lunch regularly with work colleagues, you will soon see that there are two types of people: (1) skinny people that order burgers/fries and (2) fat people that order salads.
My guess is their dietary habits are different the other 23 hours of the day.
I used to work near a technology guy who would consume at work in one day enough fat, sugar, and overall calories than most people would in a week.
I don’t think it was mere coincidence that he looked like Jabba the Hut’s more egregiously obese twin.
I must have ruined my metabolism in college running 100+ mile weeks.
Or they are skinny fat. Or look thin in clothing.
You know, the people that look normal in clothes but when you see them at the neighborhood pool in a swimsuit, you realize they are not in shape or thin.
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about
This makes it seem way to simplistic. Gut biome/digestive issues can impact it far more than exercise. Just because two people consume ~2500 calories, that does not mean each person will have ~2500 calories of energy available. Some of those ‘skinny’ people who eat a ton stay skinny because their body pulls very little energy from the food and all that energy just goes to crap.
So not necessarily, calories consumed vs burned and it’s virtually impossible for the average person to ‘count’ how many calories their stomach actually converts to energy, and it can vary wildly based on what they consume with no easy way to tell.
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about
This makes it seem way to simplistic. Gut biome/digestive issues can impact it far more than exercise. Just because two people consume ~2500 calories, that does not mean each person will have ~2500 calories of energy available. Some of those ‘skinny’ people who eat a ton stay skinny because their body pulls very little energy from the food and all that energy just goes to crap.
So not necessarily, calories consumed vs burned and it’s virtually impossible for the average person to ‘count’ how many calories their stomach actually converts to energy, and it can vary wildly based on what they consume with no easy way to tell.
The sense of having a low or high metabolic rate is not related to actual resting metabolic rate.
There is very little difference between how each person takes in calories, study after study proves this. There just happens to be a ton of people who think they are special and food is magically different for them.
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about
Downvoted because it doesn't explain WHY people are fatter now. People when I was growing up '70s and '80s (and earlier) were thinner not because everyone had better self control. Or that they knew calories in vs. calories out but people today don't know calories in vs. calories out. I knew plenty of sedentary kids and adults in the '70s and '80s, and they didn't have to execute self control to stay slim—proof of that was in the extremely low numbers of fat people.
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about
It is not that simple. If it were the type of calorie wouldn't matter. It could be 2,000 calories of lard or 2,000 calories of lean meat and vegetables. However we know those two things are not treated the same in the body.
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about
exactly. Not sure why this has 3 dislikes.
Yall do realize that metabolism is part of the "Calories out" part, right?
I know that lots of people (including you two) think that it is as simple as that.
But they are wrong.
Here I will give you two hints as to why you are wrong. There are more, but two should suffice for an intelligent being (I'm going to assume you are intelligent).
Hint 1: Within the human body, what is the median number of chromosomes within the nucleus of each cell? (warning - trick question)
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about
It is not that simple. If it were the type of calorie wouldn't matter. It could be 2,000 calories of lard or 2,000 calories of lean meat and vegetables. However we know those two things are not treated the same in the body.
The equation is still the same. It’s just that certain types of foods and combinations of macros are more likely to put you in a caloric surplus. No one ever got fat eating tuna packed in water. Lots of people have gotten fat, eating donuts.
It is not that simple. If it were the type of calorie wouldn't matter. It could be 2,000 calories of lard or 2,000 calories of lean meat and vegetables. However we know those two things are not treated the same in the body.
The equation is still the same. It’s just that certain types of foods and combinations of macros are more likely to put you in a caloric surplus. No one ever got fat eating tuna packed in water. Lots of people have gotten fat, eating donuts.
And what, precisely, is this "equation" of which you speak?
Americans especially for some reason convince themselves that they don't actually eat that much, but if you take a hard look at their diet, it's easily 2500+ calories.
There is also a lot of ignorance on the subject of nutrition because it's common for Americans to think a meal with lots of added fat and sugar is healthy as long as it has some vegetables.
The equation is still the same. It’s just that certain types of foods and combinations of macros are more likely to put you in a caloric surplus. No one ever got fat eating tuna packed in water. Lots of people have gotten fat, eating donuts.
And what, precisely, is this "equation" of which you speak?
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it seems clear they mean calories consumed minus calories burned = net effect on weight, in layman’s terms. Only they’re saying that 2,000 calories of chicken and vegetables is more likely to satisfy one’s nutritional needs and provide clean burning energy, whereas 2,000 calories of chocolate chip pancakes and artificial maple syrup is likely to leave you in need of more food (with real nutritional value) and leave you sluggish and lazy. So on face value those 2,000 calories are both 2,000 calories, but it’s not as simple as that.
And what, precisely, is this "equation" of which you speak?
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it seems clear they mean calories consumed minus calories burned = net effect on weight, in layman’s terms. Only they’re saying that 2,000 calories of chicken and vegetables is more likely to satisfy one’s nutritional needs and provide clean burning energy, whereas 2,000 calories of chocolate chip pancakes and artificial maple syrup is likely to leave you in need of more food (with real nutritional value) and leave you sluggish and lazy. So on face value those 2,000 calories are both 2,000 calories, but it’s not as simple as that.
I'm not sure you are wrong.
If you are right that would suggest that both a fat person who remains fat and a thin person who remains thin are both consuming the same number of calories that they are burning. They are both doing the same thing, yet one is fat and the other thin.
Seems different than the popular narrative of thin people.
ChatGPT wrote: The relationship between genetics and body fat is complex, involving many genes and their interactions with environmental factors. There is no single gene that determines how fat a person is, but several genes have been identified as having significant influences on body mass index (BMI), body fat distribution, and the risk of obesity. Some of these genes include: 1. **FTO (Fat mass and obesity-associated gene):** This is perhaps the most well-known gene associated with obesity. Variants of the FTO gene have been linked to higher BMI and obesity in numerous studies. 2. **MC4R (Melanocortin 4 receptor gene):** Variations in this gene can affect appetite and satiety, leading to increased food intake and a higher risk of obesity. 3. **ADRB2 (Beta-2 adrenergic receptor gene):** This gene plays a role in the regulation of fat breakdown and is linked to the distribution of body fat. 4. **PPARG (Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma):** Involved in fat cell differentiation, variants of this gene are associated with obesity and insulin sensitivity. 5. **LEPR (Leptin receptor gene):** Leptin is a hormone that regulates energy balance by inhibiting hunger. Variants in the LEPR gene can affect leptin signaling and contribute to obesity. 6. **INSIG2 (Insulin-induced gene 2):** Some studies suggest that variants of this gene are associated with obesity, though findings are mixed. It's important to note that these genes, and others involved in body weight regulation, do not work in isolation. Their effects can be amplified or diminished by lifestyle factors such as diet, physical activity, and sleep patterns. Moreover, the influence of each gene is relatively small, and it's the cumulative effect of many genes that significantly impacts body weight. Obesity is a multifactorial condition, with genetics, environment, and behavior all playing crucial roles.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it seems clear they mean calories consumed minus calories burned = net effect on weight, in layman’s terms. Only they’re saying that 2,000 calories of chicken and vegetables is more likely to satisfy one’s nutritional needs and provide clean burning energy, whereas 2,000 calories of chocolate chip pancakes and artificial maple syrup is likely to leave you in need of more food (with real nutritional value) and leave you sluggish and lazy. So on face value those 2,000 calories are both 2,000 calories, but it’s not as simple as that.
I'm not sure you are wrong.
If you are right that would suggest that both a fat person who remains fat and a thin person who remains thin are both consuming the same number of calories that they are burning. They are both doing the same thing, yet one is fat and the other thin.
Seems different than the popular narrative of thin people.
Fat people tend to lie about the amount of food they eat. They’re always on some kind of diet yet never lose weight.
I can give you a lot of anecdotals, but I’ll just say the most fat people are fat for a reason. They eat too much, and it’s not too much romaine lettuce. It’s too much highly palatable, high calorie food.
ChatGPT wrote: The relationship between genetics and body fat is complex, involving many genes and their interactions with environmental factors. There is no single gene that determines how fat a person is, but several genes have been identified as having significant influences on body mass index (BMI), body fat distribution, and the risk of obesity. Some of these genes include: 1. **FTO (Fat mass and obesity-associated gene):** This is perhaps the most well-known gene associated with obesity. Variants of the FTO gene have been linked to higher BMI and obesity in numerous studies. 2. **MC4R (Melanocortin 4 receptor gene):** Variations in this gene can affect appetite and satiety, leading to increased food intake and a higher risk of obesity. 3. **ADRB2 (Beta-2 adrenergic receptor gene):** This gene plays a role in the regulation of fat breakdown and is linked to the distribution of body fat. 4. **PPARG (Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma):** Involved in fat cell differentiation, variants of this gene are associated with obesity and insulin sensitivity. 5. **LEPR (Leptin receptor gene):** Leptin is a hormone that regulates energy balance by inhibiting hunger. Variants in the LEPR gene can affect leptin signaling and contribute to obesity. 6. **INSIG2 (Insulin-induced gene 2):** Some studies suggest that variants of this gene are associated with obesity, though findings are mixed. It's important to note that these genes, and others involved in body weight regulation, do not work in isolation. Their effects can be amplified or diminished by lifestyle factors such as diet, physical activity, and sleep patterns. Moreover, the influence of each gene is relatively small, and it's the cumulative effect of many genes that significantly impacts body weight. Obesity is a multifactorial condition, with genetics, environment, and behavior all playing crucial roles.
so... calorie in, calorie out.
It’s somewhat of an oversimplification but it’s not wrong.
If you’re in a caloric surplus, you will gain weight; a caloric deficit, you will lose weight.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
People who try to discredit calories in calories out tend to ignore the importance of portion size, as if there’s no difference between one slice of pizza and four.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it seems clear they mean calories consumed minus calories burned = net effect on weight, in layman’s terms. Only they’re saying that 2,000 calories of chicken and vegetables is more likely to satisfy one’s nutritional needs and provide clean burning energy, whereas 2,000 calories of chocolate chip pancakes and artificial maple syrup is likely to leave you in need of more food (with real nutritional value) and leave you sluggish and lazy. So on face value those 2,000 calories are both 2,000 calories, but it’s not as simple as that.
I'm not sure you are wrong.
If you are right that would suggest that both a fat person who remains fat and a thin person who remains thin are both consuming the same number of calories that they are burning. They are both doing the same thing, yet one is fat and the other thin.
Seems different than the popular narrative of thin people.
Yes, the bolded part is correct and is also the popular narrative, just that it is not true that “they are both doing the same thing”, rather it just doesn’t matter what they are doing, i.e., if they are in weight (and muscle/fat composition) homeostasis, their bodies are in caloric balance.