Metabolism

File: 1477614481812.jpg (23KB, 320x241px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x241px

>>39235673
>handholding

File: IMG_1222.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>39235673
>hand holding
WEW lad

>>39235673
>NOBODY is debating this.

Fat people challenge it all the time.

>>39235673
Height has a variation on metabolism. This is common sense.

>>39235740
Triggered

Obviously no one has the exact same BMR or TDEE down to the tenth fucking decimal place dumbass. The reason no on cares, and appropriately so, is because for two people of the same age/gender/weight/heigt/etc, the differences are - disregarding any absolutely extreme medical conditions - completely and totally fucking negligable. Given nothing but a person's age and weight, and MAYBE a couple other factors if we wanna be unnecessarily over precise, we can calculate their BMR almost exactly, and correspondingly tell them almost exactly how many calories to cut/add in order to lose an almost exact amount of weight in almost any almost exact amount of time.

Almost NO ONE, barring the fraction of a percent of the population with some extreme medical condition, has a BMR that is so wildly against the average for their age and weight that it affects how many calories they have to eat. So no, you lazy piece of shit, some people do not have "easier times becoming /fit/". Maybe some people naturally have an over or under active APPETITE that makes cutting/bulking easier or harder, but effectively NO ONE has a metabolism that makes these things uniquely easier or harder for them.

>>39235886
You serious? I am literally counting calories and went for 3200, because muh TDEE plus 500.

That didn't work, no gains in a week, so I did 3700+.

Wow, guess what? I'm gaining weight

>>39236015
you delicate snowflake. No tdee calculator is 100% accurate for anyone. God forbid you need to experiment around a little bit and find what actually works for your body.

>>39236061
Cool. So how is that a negligable difference?

>>39236078
i'm not >>39235886
i'm >>39235766

>>39236090
The standard deviation for metabolic variance(controlling for age, height, lean body mass, etc.) is 5-8% or ~160 Kcal/day assuming a 2000kcal/day average.

This means 68% of the pop is within that range and that 95% of the population is within 10-16%.

>>39236015

Original guy you responded to here. Quick question friendo, are you literally retarded? You waited ONE SINGLE FUCKING WEEK? You have to consistently eat the same number of calories for AT LEAST one month and trck your weight gain/loss over that time period. Weight fluctuates temporarily but in far too large of increments for you to be able to truly see any change after one fucking week. Typical fucking no good, lazy, entitled, whiny fatty/skelly mentality.

> why am I not seeing instant results!!1!1
> muh metabolism must be speshul yeah that's it!!1!1

I literally said the BMR values that a calculator would give you would only be approximate, and calculating TDEE is even more approximate/less accurate because the measures for level of physical activity that you can input are usually very limited and imprecise. Calculators are meant to give you a good estimate of your BMR and maybe a really rough estimate of your TDEE. You INITIALLY base your calorie consumption on these values, and again, you then have to maintain that calorie consumption for at least a couple of weeks. THEN you check to see the difference in your weight, and use that to determine your BMR/TDEE more accurately. If you lost/gained less weight than you should have based on your original values, it means your BMR/TDEE is actually lower/higher (respectively) than you orginally thought, and you need to adjust accordingly.

And just because I'm really pissed about your response, I'm gonna rag on you again. How fucking dare you, an obvious novice with no knowledge, try this for A SINGLE FUCKING WEEK and then come in here with the audacity to act like an arrogant fucking idiot claiming that I'm wrong at that you know better than me. You tried dieting for A FUCKING WEEK and think that's enough evidence - you, a sample size of fucking one, and for an insufficient time period - to arrogantly exclaim "lol wow guess what I'm gaining weight now so that must mean muh metabolism is speshul."

>>39236309
How much estrogen are you taking rn

>>39236015
Perhaps you just suck at counting calories?

>>39236162

So even assuming 10% variance on a 2000kcal BMR, that's a paltry 200 fucking calories. That's literally two bananas, a glass of milk, a single small spoon of peanut butter, or any other ridiculously negligable amount of food. Wow such a difference, that sure does make it way harder/easier for some people to lose/gain weight wow holy cow jeepers I sure just can't believe it. People who's metabolisms deviate that much from the average sure do have it way rougher holy cow wow. Not like they can't drink one small glass of milk less/more per day to make up for that deviance, no sir they are just eternally cursed to have a way harder time losing/gaining weight because of that.

Fuckin kys friendo

>>39236330

> shit he btfo'd me
> better initiate damage control

>>39235673
>use tdee to find the correct ballpark
>adjust according to the scale
No one says everyone it the same you retard

>>39236309
Well I was eating that amount for many months, I just decided to track it. That's why I increased calories

>>39236471

As you should have. Now I'm confused, was your original comment agreeing with the sentiment in the OP, or were you just stating that you started gaining weight once you increased your calorie intake more?

File: mFFAtiMJ.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>39235673
this is a fucking blue board dude

>>39236640
Both?

>>39236347

>height, strength, penis and tit size, iq, test levels commonly vary from 20 to 100% of average
>metabolism is only 10% cause i said so


Spot the dyel shitlord

>>39236784

Read the comment I was responding to dumbass. That comment claims it's only 10%, I responded in like. Also, if you're in the camp that there are truly significant variations in metabolsim, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that.

> height, strength, penis and tit size, iq, test levels commonly vary from 20 to 100% of average
> metabolism is only 10% cause i said so
> muh false equivalences

Whether or not those other factors vary and by how much they var from the average has absolutely fucking nothing to do with what we are discussing, which is whether or not there are any significant variations in metabolism between two people of similar age/weight/etc, that are signficant enough that it is easier for one of two said people to lose/gain weight. And the answer to that query, is no.

This is not "cause I said so", it's cause it's a scientific fact. Keep deluding yourself though you lazy piece of shit fatty/skelly. The rest of us will keep having an "easier time" than you making it because we know how to face facts and reality and not lie to ourselves about how much we're eating.

>>39236784
educate yourself
for the vast majority of the population, their metabolism variance can be addressed with a single candy bar
>but im a hard gainer
eat one additional candy bar
>but my metabolism is too slow
eat one less candy bar

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

this is why i dont trust perontal tranenrs

The TL;DR-guys in this thread is actually correct, he's getting his information from:

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

To all the faggots in this thread who think they're special and have "crazy metabolism". No. You are not special.No. You have a normal metabolism.