117
Going to the doctor as a fat person sucks
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
117 points (96.1% liked)
chapotraphouse
13626 readers
793 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I do think it is true to an extent, my sister had a pretty high metabolism and would never gain despite what she ate.
She was decently active though which also increases your metabolism...either way I do think there is a difference it makes, but like you said I don't think it's a massive difference where someone on a Super Size Me diet would remain bone thin (or the inverse someone on a moderate diet gaining a crazy amount of weight.
I was posting something in a similar vein on the trans mega actually , where you hear about how much someone eats and it's more than you despite them being skinner because of their height and metabolism.
I think a lot of this is death by a thousand cuts type stuff that's kind of impossible to accurately scope out unless you were scientifically observed 24/7 for a while without your knowledge so as to not change your behaviour, which is obviously horribly unethical.
I don't care for the exact numbers too much for this example, those vary depending on source and study but just as an example if you take identical people with identical lifetstyles and diets you can easily get quite wild numbers of different caloric rates.
These two otherwise exactly identical people doing the exact same thing every day eating the exact same things, portion sizes etc. except for those 3 things mentioned above would lead you to a 770 Calories difference in calories needed a day. And there's so many variables here. A splash of oil is easily 200 calories apart depending on who's splashing, there's another 100 calories a day if we assume both of our theoretical people are avid home cooks who cook for themselves every second day and never throw anything out.
As noted in this context I don't really care for the actual number. Knock it down to 50 for the fidgeting and you'd still end up at a ~500 calorie difference between two otherwise 100% identical and synchronized people, or a pound of fat up / down a week.
My point here is that any assessment about how many calories a person eats or burns, unless done with actual 24/7 tracking, is basically just guessing because the numbers of variables is so high and even a few of those can add up to quite a lot of difference over time.
Cigarettes have calories?
Should've put a minus there to make it clearer, smoking cigarettes burns about 200kcal a day because it raises your heartrate. The other 100 is from the assumption you don't smoke inside and so include more walks outside for it over the course of a day.
Ah, that makes more sense