Why don't some people never gain any weight no matter how much they eat?

https://lemmy.world/post/26154267

Why don't some people never gain any weight no matter how much they eat? - Lemmy.World

My brother, 21 yo, is like this. He’s ~180 cm tall and has never weighted more than 61 kg (during the 2020 covid lockdown, he made a big deal out of this since it was the first time he passed the 60 kg mark; after the lockdown was over he immediately dropped back to his perpetual weight of ~55kg). I live with him so I know his eating habits: he eats all the time, whatever he wants, whenever, how much he wants and simply doesn’t put on any weight. Is very energetic, no sick look / demeanour. It’s just fascinating to me cause I’m not like that at all, I have to watch what / how much / when I eat.

if you don’t starve yourself and eat whenever you’re hungry you actually gain less weight than being on a diet

That’s psychology, not physics. If you actually stick to a diet such that you are eating less than you burn, you will lose weight.

No one can break the laws of physics.

too bad human beings aren’t engines huh?

the fake claim that most people even need to lose weight actually derives from the eugenics movement. for more information I recommend the book Belly of the Beast by Da’Shaun L. Harrison.

if you’re burning more calories than you eat that’s called starving yourself and it leads to eating disorders and long-term organ damage. stop spreading harmful misinformation

…edu.au/…/its-time-to-bust-the-calories-in-calori…

It's time to bust the 'calories in, calories out' weight-loss myth

The University of Sydney

Read the article, 2/3 of it corroborate that it is a calorie in/out balance that determines weight, but is simply more complex than a simple formula. Which we all know. Fiber changes how many calories you actually consume. The type of calorie depends on how much you consume (whole foods vs processed, raw vs cooked) Processed sugars like candy is almost entirely taken in calorie wise, but something like an apple or carrot, have to be converted in the digestive system to be absorbed, thereby reducing the effective calorie input (takes energy to convert).

All that said, you do your best to track, (weigh your own food instead of guessing off the label), and keep your calorie intake below what you spend (again, this is generalized, and won’t be 100% accurate, but should get you close and then you adjust as needed). The problem most people face is they make sweeping changes, and quit their eating habits cold turkey. “I’m never eating candy or ice cream again” <- bad idea unless you’re allergic or something. Forbidding it will increase the craving for it, and then when you eventually succumb to the craving, you feel super guilty and basically give up.

I follow the “add good food” rather than the “reduce what I eat”. If you up your fiber and protein intake, it’s SUPER hard to overeat. Fiber and protein are super satiating, and it lasts a long time. Adding whole foods to what you already eat is a great way to reduce overall consumption.

Btw potatoes and beans are GOATed.

ah yes, promoting calorie counting and weighing food, the famously not disordered gymbro eating patterns. the article actually says that calorie counting can cause more harm than good

Lawl, I’m so not a gymbro.

I’m fat, and out of shape, but am slowly working my way to a happier healthier weight, using the principles listed above.

you’re what we call in the fat community one of the “good fats”. just know that what you’re promoting is pseudoscience and not conducive to “health” whatever that means

You’re what we call in the Internet community jackass and a troll.

Look up the definition of pseudoscience, I think you’ll find it fits your discussion points better than mine.

Anywho, troll’s always be trollin’ so I’ll leave off here because you won’t ever even consider you might be wrong. I’ve been on both sides of this argument, and the overwhelming consensus aligns with what I’ve been saying.