Why exactly, biochemically does it mean to have a fast metabolism...

I'm not fat user so I don't count macros. That's the entire point. That isn't an inconsistency. user claimed he might be an outlier and by simple reasoning one can assume that they do exist.

Today for breakfast I had 1 pbj sammich and 1/3 a pineapple. Lunch I ate 2 for 5$ burger King extra long cheese burger and a small fries. I only drink water. For dinner just now I had reheated pulled pork bbq,rice, corn, and another 1/3 of that pineapple.

People who log all the food they eat so that 6 days later they can decide if they wanna splurge on an extra scoop of potatoes just seem Autistic user. You're gonna get gains either way

I used to think I had a fast metabolism because I would eat """""" a lot """"""" and not put weight on.

And then I actually started to eat a lot because of the gym; lo and behold, I put on weight.

technically a fast metabolism would mean someone gains weight/grow faster because of their efficiency and therefore increased rate at which they digest and break down nutrients.

someone who's skinny might not be as efficiently absorbing nutrients either due to the levels of enzymes they secrete, health challenges or the composition of their diet.

Yes, I don't count anything either, but you gotta have a good sense of how much you're eating if you're not gonna count, and most people don't.

Let me show you how STUPID his statement is:

When he's saying he's not gaining ANY weight on GOMAD, which is 2500 kcal a day in MILK ONLY which is probably above his BMR already, plus his normal food intake, which should average around 2k, which totals to about 4500 kcal.

Let's not be generous, and say that this only puts him 1500 kcal over, if you account for working out a few times a week (but it's probably 2k over). This would mean his QUICK METABOLISM burns 1500 kcal more a day than the average person, which is just absurd. We as humans strive on the fact that we don't burn a lot of calories.

There might be small metabolic differences of 100-200 between average people, but it's REALLY, REALLY rare to have the condition that we're talking about.

I'm terrible at sitting still, always moving my legs around and what not. I sometimes wonder how much extra energy I burn over an entire day because of that compared to someone who's sitting mostly still. I also easily get very warm and a friend once told me sleeping next to me is like sleeping next to a radiator. But that could just be a size thing I guess.

My only point is that oddities exist. For everyone to be cookie cuter calories in calories out then I would just assume there wouldn't be 500 different types of diets out there on a daily basis. I can't even prove fast metabolisms and their effects but somewhere someone latched onto the idea through what I hope was at minimum process of elimination. My personal life experience is I never held back when eating and my weight never fluctuated because of it. I'm a 5'11 manlet and with that lifestyle the only time I ever broke away from the low 160s is when I started working out which now only lands me at 185. Even now my only change in eating is water when back then it was soda soda soda.

Metabolism is probably only a small factor but I can't believe that if that if Michael Duncan and me both out the same food and did the same workout routine pound for pound that we would both end up at the exact same goal at the exact same time

calroemfsfgds in clasmdsgklvkdsvcosou out
its all u ned to onefs dms,fawetnfsad,fnadlginamreioyjlisbng

I can only sleep with 1 sheet or else I wake up in a pool of sweat. I usually have to change out my top at least because it's soaked. I assume I'm burning ever so slightly more than the guy sleeping comfy in the same temp room. Sweat lodges are a way to murder water weight so I often think my body not by intentional design keeps that in check

>Metabolism is probably only a small factor

Exactly. All I'm saying is, in most cases, people always overestimate or underestimate how much they eat. Just read about people who started counting calories and most of them are shocked how off they were in their estimates.

I have a friend who claims he has fast metabolism, but when I questioned him about what he typically eats, he said "one medium sized meal", "usually fries and nuggets" with zero exercise.

If you eat a lot of healthy, low fat, high protein food, like a BB diet but don't work out, what happens? Do you get fat, or shit off the protein you don't use?

this
Fucked around on brosplits and a protein shake once in a blue moon - stayed dyel and complained about lanklet genetix

hopped on 5/3/1 and started EATING ALL THE FUCKING TIME - lo an behold 10 fucking kilos gained in a year

Diet is important

As a Doctor in Neuro-Chemistry; It is about the affinity of hormones/enzymes. Say you are always warm: more enzymes that metabolizes glycogen to create warmth.

Easy/hard to build muscles, store fat, more /less enzymes to do these things.

They are quite genetic but can be modified by life-choices.
Fat people have more fat-cells, more cell-nuclei, that can immobilize lipids/fatty acids as stored fat with the help of triglycerides, with the help of, you guessed it; enzymes in the fat-cell.

There isn't a difference. You will find some people naturally twitch and wriggle more than others. Over a day that could add up to 200-500 calories.

You're a doctor in neurochemistry but you don't understand how semicolons work? You also think fat people have more fat cells and don't know that you really don't increase in adipose tissue much, but rather just enlargen preexisting cells? Or that cell nuclei count can be modified depending on necessity of said tissue, such as in muscle fibers? Alright doctor on Veeky Forums.

what life choices?

Not him, but after your pre-existing fat cells are full, more adipose cells are made.
So hypertrophy turns into hyperplasia.
Which is why obese people have a harder time getting rid of adipose tissue because they have more fat cells than a normal person

>Fat people have more fat-cells

Nice fucking phd you got there. I see it didn't even require a comprehensive understanding of human anatomy 101.

I'm not a sports science guy but a biochemical guy so I can halp a bit, I don't have journals cited rite now but I know journals talking about this. Actual bmr does not differ for most peep unless obese, muscular, super tall etc. (even then change is like 300ish), but being sedentary often causes the biggest difference metabolic rate.I think it was 500 if u fidget overall for like 3 hours in a day or something not 100 on the numbers

As a fatty that has lost 10Kg over the past 9 months, I can attest that it wasn't until I dropped to 1400Kc a day + gym that I started to lose weight. I was eating 1700Kc - what should have been a deficit for a 100Kg 27 year-old male - and would not lose anything. And it wasn't muscle building since I mostly do cardio (bicycles due to fucked up knees). Will start to lift soon.

So yeah, my metabolism is clearly not textbook cookie-cutter like you faggots think.

>inb4 quoting the article on miscalculating caloric intake
I'm using electronic scales accurate to the gram, nigger.

Wrong

I have to eat close to 3900 a day to not maintain. Went below it last week and lost weight. I'm 181lbs, 5' 11 and do the Texas method

Unless the nutrition labels on my food are wrong or my scales are wrong, then there is a teeny tiny chance that making generalisations about everyone is in fact not a great idea

>For everyone to be cookie cuter calories in calories out then I would just assume there wouldn't be 500 different types of diets out there on a daily basis

Yeah bro it's not like all these magazines and nutritionists are trying to make money selling you these garbage ""diets""

Exactly this.

I used to weigh 120lbs at 5'10, thinking I was an "ectomorph" or "hardgainer" with "high metabolism" until I learned you need to eat a LOT more than you're used to if you wanna gain weight.

>Still not having a clue how to properly calculate caloric intake

Not that PhD guy. But also a PhD in completely different subject that sometimes like to read about physiology. That fat gain is going to lead to the formation of more fat cells is known, see e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocyte#Adipocyte_adaptation

>or relying too heavily on calorie calculators.

as almost 60% of our daily burned calories come from resting metabolism, there can be large margins of error from these calculators.

My little sister thinks shes fat because muh metabolism. She says how she sees her friends eating junk food all the time and they dont get fat so she blames her genetics. What do i do to her? I spend my free time working out and stuff while she sits in front of the TV all day playing video games. Then she wonders why shes fat and im not.

This. I still believe I have a faster metabolism than most, but since bumping up my intake to over 3200 calories a day a few weeks ago I have gained a couple of pounds. My only problem now is doing this clean. Right now I've been eating a lot of garbage with high salt and sugar content. Honestly, I just don't like to eat so bulking is the worst part of getting fit imo.