Metabolism, should it affect the calculatiuon of your daily calories?

This topic contains 2 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Stinger 9 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

Potlatch

10:51 am
9 Jan 15
Permalink

Two guys I know that are at the same age, weight, height and who works out/train just the same – are gonna try out 5-2. They have asked me how much calories they ought to eat on fasting day. If I use the calculators I see online they should of course eat the same amount of calroies since their values are the same.

But one of the guys have a really high natural metabolism, he can never get fat, even if he eats LOTS of food. The other guy is the opposite with a slow metabolism. Even if he eats normally he is close to putting on wight.

So my question is: should they really eat the same amount of calories on a day of fasting? Or should their different metabolism in some way affect this?

simcoeluv

6:35 pm
9 Jan 15
Permalink

Potlatch:

On 16 Sep 14 on the following thread I posted a link to a BBC program titled ‘Why Are Thin People Not Fat’. In it, you may learn you are fat because you caught a virus, or have different genes, or just eat too much. You might be thin because you did not catch a virus, have different genes or don’t eat too much.

But to answer your question, metabolism has nothing to do with 5:2. The science behind 5:2 has to do with severe caloric restriction. That means, regardless of your ‘metabolism’, for it to work you need to eat 25% of your TDEE (or less) twice a week.

https://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/the-basics-for-newbies-your-questions-answered/

Good Luck!

Stinger

1:33 pm
11 Jan 15
Permalink

Metabolism myth: fat people have a low resting metabolic rate.

Wrong. Thin people do. How can that be I hear you all scream?

Resting metabolic rate is usually referred to as the amount of calories needed per day just to live and do nothing else.

Each cell in our bodies requires energy to continue living.
So it is logical to assume that people who are fatter, i.e. they have more cells, use more energy. And this is what we see. It is the thinest lightest people who use the least amount of energy simply because they have less fat cells so they eat less.

So you might have someone who is say 18 stone and needs 3,000 cals per day just to stay that weight. Similarly you might have a thin person who is say 10 stone and needs only 1,500 cals per day.

This goes some way to explain why weight loss “plateaus” out after time. Your weight loss follows an exponential curve (like going down the side of a bath tub). It also shows why heavier people seem to lose more in the initial period. To keep seeing dramatic weight loss amounts you have to reduce your intake further as you get thinner which seems very counter-intuitive doesn’t it? So 600 cals per day may not do it on just two days and explains why some people need to do three or more days to get meaningful results.

This is a well known effect in physics called half life. So if you want to see a consistent amount of weight going you will need to increase the calorie restriction per week. This is also why relatively mildly overweight people think the weight loss stops after a time. What’s happened is that you have reached the equilibrium point where you are consuming less and maintaining that weight. Not every male needs 2,500 calories per day, for some that would mean weight gain, especially in sedentary jobs like being in an office. The disappointment felt at reaching this point makes some people give in when in fact it is working, you just need to take it to a lower level. When you have got to your target you will know how much is “safe” to eat and what is too much. That’s the problem though – will power and it is the time when bathroom scale “blindness” seems to kick in. Keep at it!

FAO Mr Moseley: have you covered this aspect in your diet plan thoroughly? For some, only 0 cals or a lot less than 600 per fast day will be the most appropriate? I think you need to cover long term weight maintenance cal daily levels a bit more for. A more in-depth appreciation of metabolic rate versus target weight should be considered. There appears to be some sort of program on tv this week about that I think on the bbc 2 channel (Monday 9p.m.?).