I'm underweight I guess, ain't even mad.

I just don't put on weight.

 

Same. I can't gain weight if I wanted to.

 

Translation: You overestimate how much you eat.

 

Not necessary, but sufficient.

 

Sometimes it's due to having very high metabolism - even eating 3,000 calories a day for a 6ft male with little exercise would not gain weight for them as they burn it at such a fast rate.

I'm 5'7, 148 lbs :( . I do care a little about my weight, though. I feel kinda fat atm, damn need to start working out again!

I'm underweight I guess, ain't even mad.

I just don't put on weight.

 

Same. I can't gain weight if I wanted to.

 

Translation: You overestimate how much you eat.

 

Not necessary, but sufficient.

 

Sometimes it's due to having very high metabolism - even eating 3,000 calories a day for a 6ft male with little exercise would not gain weight for them as they burn it at such a fast rate.

 

Someone who is 6 foot should weigh closer to 200 pounds, meaning they would need more calories just based on their weight alone. Someone who is underweight is underweight because they do not eat enough to even maintain a normal weight. When someone says high metabolism, it is 9 times out of 10 that they actually over estimate what they eat. Blaming it on genetics or metabolism is usually just an excuse

I only care to a certain degree. Right now I'm hovering around 200lbs (my max was ~220). As long as I stay below 210, I'm fine with it. I've been overweight since grade 6, anyway.

 

Height= ~5'10.5"

I'm underweight I guess, ain't even mad.

I just don't put on weight.

 

Same. I can't gain weight if I wanted to.

 

Translation: You overestimate how much you eat.

 

Not necessary, but sufficient.

 

Sometimes it's due to having very high metabolism - even eating 3,000 calories a day for a 6ft male with little exercise would not gain weight for them as they burn it at such a fast rate.

 

Someone who is 6 foot should weigh closer to 200 pounds, meaning they would need more calories just based on their weight alone. Someone who is underweight is underweight because they do not eat enough to even maintain a normal weight. When someone says high metabolism, it is 9 times out of 10 that they actually over estimate what they eat. Blaming it on genetics or metabolism is usually just an excuse

Is it really us skinny people overestimating how much we eat or the rest of the population underestimating?

I have a BMI of 18.8, so while I would care if there was something wrong with it, I don't. (Note: Although 18.8 would probably be underweight for an adult, the normal BMI range is broader for teenagers and kids apparently).

My BMI is like 20.8...hadn't calculated it in a while.

 

Is it really us skinny people overestimating how much we eat or the rest of the population underestimating?

 

No, if everyone were underestimating how much they eat then everyone would be obese. If you're eating less than (minimum) 2000 calories a day, you aren't eating a healthy amount. It's simple, fuel in -> growth/weight gain, not enough fuel in -> no weight gain/growth.

 

Is it really us skinny people overestimating how much we eat or the rest of the population underestimating?

 

No, if everyone were underestimating how much they eat then everyone would be obese. If you're eating less than (minimum) 2000 calories a day, you aren't eating a healthy amount. It's simple, fuel in -> growth/weight gain, not enough fuel in -> no weight gain/growth.

 

Subjective argument. A 250lb bodybuilder won't do very well on 2,000 calories, and 2,000 calories would make most toddlers fat. The figure varies quite a lot for varying body shapes and sizes

 

EDIT - Responding to the above quotes: Your assumptions aren't very well founded, and the statistics you present don't seem very plausible. How do you know that 9 times out of 10, someone claiming that they have high metabolism/genetic disorders related to eating are really just 'underestimating/overestimating how much they eat'?

 

Is it really us skinny people overestimating how much we eat or the rest of the population underestimating?

 

No, if everyone were underestimating how much they eat then everyone would be obese. If you're eating less than (minimum) 2000 calories a day, you aren't eating a healthy amount. It's simple, fuel in -> growth/weight gain, not enough fuel in -> no weight gain/growth.

 

Subjective argument. A 250lb bodybuilder won't do very well on 2,000 calories, and 2,000 calories would make most toddlers fat. The figure varies quite a lot for varying body shapes and sizes

 

You are talking extremes. For an average person around 20, I'm assuming about 5'8", 2000 MINIMUM just to maintain. Of course, if you want to put on weight then you'd have to eat more. The general rule is bodyweight x 14 = calories you should eat a day to maintain. Of course, this doesn't work if you are very underweight (then 3k+ cals to put on weight in decent time), or very overweight.

I wouldn't like to be fat nor skinny.

 

I'm 182cm on 82kg (about 180lbs), but i workout a few times per week, so it's not 10 extra kilos of crisps.

That being said, i'd rather weigh 110kg after some years in the gym than what i am now.

 

My current BMI is apperently 25 lol.

I wouldn't like to be fat nor skinny.

 

I'm 182cm on 82kg (about 180lbs), but i workout a few times per week, so it's not 10 extra kilos of crisps.

That being said, i'd rather weigh 110kg after some years in the gym than what i am now.

 

My current BMI is apperently 25 lol.

 

Thing I don't like about BMI is that it can't really tell if the weight is muscle or fat. If you've got someone who's 5'8" and 200 pounds of muscle at 10% bf, then their BMI is going to be 30 (obese class 1)

 

Is it really us skinny people overestimating how much we eat or the rest of the population underestimating?

 

No, if everyone were underestimating how much they eat then everyone would be obese. If you're eating less than (minimum) 2000 calories a day, you aren't eating a healthy amount. It's simple, fuel in -> growth/weight gain, not enough fuel in -> no weight gain/growth.

 

Subjective argument. A 250lb bodybuilder won't do very well on 2,000 calories, and 2,000 calories would make most toddlers fat. The figure varies quite a lot for varying body shapes and sizes

 

You are talking extremes. For an average person around 20, I'm assuming about 5'8", 2000 MINIMUM just to maintain. Of course, if you want to put on weight then you'd have to eat more. The general rule is bodyweight x 14 = calories you should eat a day to maintain. Of course, this doesn't work if you are very underweight (then 3k+ cals to put on weight in decent time), or very overweight.

 

I know I'm using more extreme figures, but I'm using them because they are more illustrative in demonstrating what I mean. Most humans don't vary that widely in terms of height, so it's mainly the ratio of muscle:fat that would determine metabolism.

 

It's proven that men in general burn more calories doing nothing than women, simply because men have a higher ratio of muscle in general. Believe it or not, a lot of people could indeed have 'high metabolism', but not to the extent which some people try and lead us to believe.

 

EDIT - I do agree that the BMI figure is misleading. 'Fitness' in general has a lot of criteria, such as weight/blood pressure/body fat percentage/height/diseases/infections etc. BMI alone means very little

 

 

I know I'm using more extreme figures, but I'm using them because they are more illustrative in demonstrating what I mean. Most humans don't vary that widely in terms of height, so it's mainly the ratio of muscle:fat that would determine metabolism.

 

It's proven that men in general burn more calories doing nothing than women, simply because men have a higher ratio of muscle in general. Believe it or not, a lot of people could indeed have 'high metabolism', but not to the extent which some people try and lead us to believe.

 

The people who claim they can't gain weight and blame it on high metabolism just don't eat enough. People can have high metabolism, but people who say they can't gain weight because they have high metabolism never actually eat enough (and likely don't have high metabolism). If they haven't tried counting calories and eating 3k+ calories a day, they don't have high metabolism.

 

 

I know I'm using more extreme figures, but I'm using them because they are more illustrative in demonstrating what I mean. Most humans don't vary that widely in terms of height, so it's mainly the ratio of muscle:fat that would determine metabolism.

 

It's proven that men in general burn more calories doing nothing than women, simply because men have a higher ratio of muscle in general. Believe it or not, a lot of people could indeed have 'high metabolism', but not to the extent which some people try and lead us to believe.

 

The people who claim they can't gain weight and blame it on high metabolism just don't eat enough. People can have high metabolism, but people who say they can't gain weight because they have high metabolism never actually eat enough (and likely don't have high metabolism).

 

I know that's what you're asserting, but why is it that it's not high metabolism? Has there been any known studies that show/prove this?

 

 

I know that's what you're asserting, but why is it that it's not high metabolism? Has there been any known studies that show/prove this?

 

Get any skinny person who says they can't put on weight even if they try, and get them to eat 3000 calories a day. I can guarantee you they will put on weight 9 times out of 10. Like I said, lots of skinny people overestimate how much they eat and figure they eat a normal amount, so they blame it on a fast metabolism. Or they'll eat a lot of crap that doesn't have any nutritional value, not gain weight, and blame it on metabolism. If they actually counted how many calories they ate in a day regularly, I'm willing to bet you'd see around 1500 calories a day. It's like the skinny person version of "I'm not fat, I just have big bones". They've never actually put the serious effort to track and eat in, so they'll just keep blaming it on metabolism. Hell, even with a high metabolism you can gain weight.

 

 

I know that's what you're asserting, but why is it that it's not high metabolism? Has there been any known studies that show/prove this?

 

Get any skinny person who says they can't put on weight even if they try, and get them to eat 3000 calories a day. I can guarantee you they will put on weight 9 times out of 10. Like I said, lots of skinny people overestimate how much they eat and figure they eat a normal amount, so they blame it on a fast metabolism. Or they'll eat a lot of crap that doesn't have any nutritional value, not gain weight, and blame it on metabolism. If they actually counted how many calories they ate in a day regularly, I'm willing to bet you'd see around 1500 calories a day. It's like the skinny person version of "I'm not fat, I just have big bones". They've never actually put the serious effort to track and eat in, so they'll just keep blaming it on metabolism. Hell, even with a high metabolism you can gain weight.

 

It's difficult for me to judge whether they will gain weight or not, as I haven't seen it in action, but it mainly depends on what the 3,000 calories are, and how much they exercise. If they're eating extremely high amounts of carbohydrates, it's no doubt that they would put on weight, as it would convert to sugar and fat as it enters the body.

 

I'm sure they can gain weight, but that's not what my point was. My point was that they 'would have more difficulty in doing so, as their bodies were burning calories at a faster rate'.

 

Slightly less offtopic: I think I do care about my weight, but if I'm eating healthy and taking enough exercise for my build, then it isn't a significant issue unless I'm quite significantly overweight/underweight, which I'm not. I think I would be slightly above average, at 70kg 5ft 11"

 

It's difficult for me to judge whether they will gain weight or not, as I haven't seen it in action, but it mainly depends on what the 3,000 calories are, and how much they exercise. If they're eating extremely high amounts of carbohydrates, it's no doubt that they would put on weight, as it would convert to sugar and fat as it enters the body.

 

I'm sure they can gain weight, but that's not what my point was. My point was that they 'would have more difficulty in doing so, as their bodies were burning calories at a faster rate'.

 

 

Let's assume a 40/40/20 split of calories, and 3k calories in general is good for putting on weight. I'm disagreeing that their bodies are burning calories at a much faster rate (the posters in this thread), because I highly doubt they actually have a high metabolism.

 

It's difficult for me to judge whether they will gain weight or not, as I haven't seen it in action, but it mainly depends on what the 3,000 calories are, and how much they exercise. If they're eating extremely high amounts of carbohydrates, it's no doubt that they would put on weight, as it would convert to sugar and fat as it enters the body.

 

I'm sure they can gain weight, but that's not what my point was. My point was that they 'would have more difficulty in doing so, as their bodies were burning calories at a faster rate'.

 

 

Let's assume a 40/40/20 split of calories, and 3k calories in general is good for putting on weight. I'm disagreeing that their bodies are burning calories at a faster rate (the posters in this thread), because I highly doubt they actually have a high metabolism.

 

Perhaps not the people on this thread, but I'm discussing people in general. I'm unsure by what you mean with 40/40/10 split of calories either.

 

 

Perhaps not the people on this thread, but I'm discussing people in general. I'm unsure by what you mean with 40/40/10 split of calories either.

 

I've been talking the people in the thread and skinny people in general. If we are talking about people who ACTUALLY have high metabolism, then I agree that they will have a harder time putting on weight. Doesn't mean it's impossible though.

 

40/40/20 means protein%/fat%/carbs%

I'm definitely overweight. I was born a big baby too (over 10lbs). It depends on the day and the picture I look at that I care about my weight. I'm fine with my self esteem so that's not an issue, but sometimes when I look at a picture, I'm just like "how do I stay active to play sports?" or "what do people see when they see me?" stuff like that.

 

I mean, I know I need to lose a lot of weight to be at a healthy range, but it's hard for me to get it off. I'm not going to do the Biggest Loser or other fast weight loss stuff, that isn't for me. I just need to eat healthier and exercise more if I wanted to lose weight for some reason. But my girlfriend thinks I'm cuddly, so that's something I've got going for me. ;)

I'm 6'4 and weight has never really been a huge problem to me, except when I finished school I stopped sport all together, went to England for 5 months and pretty much ate fish and chips the whole time I was there. I knew I was putting on weight but didn't think it was that bad until I got back and my mum started telling me I looked like I had put on too much weight, and my friends told me the same thing. I was only 190 pounds which doesn't seem like that much, and my BMI told me I was normal weight. Anyway, I got back into sport and exercising and started eating a bit better, best thing I've done..Two years later and I'm now 163 pounds of muscle :shades:

 

Beanpole...

Reading this entire thread makes me feel really skinny. I'm 6", and weight about 143lbs.

Reading this entire thread makes me feel really skinny. I'm 6", and weight about 143lbs.

 

A majority of RuneScape players are Americans.

I'm 6", and weight about 143lbs.

That is me exactly.

 

I don't really care about my weight, I've always been just under average so it's never really been a problem for me.