Yes, BMR is one of the main determinates of a person’s tendency to be fat or lean. The article you linked to mentioned sex, body type, temperature regime, GENETICS, dieting, age, etc.

I have several anecdotal stories about this. I served with a Marine while instructing at Whiting Field, near Pensacola. He ate high calorie foods constantly and yet he was emaciated. I could have gained 5 pounds a month on what he ate. I consider this anecdotal evidence of a genetic high metabolism. I’ll bet most people have known someone like this.

At one point in my Navy career my squadron rotated between Alameda, California and Cubi Point in the Philippines every six months. I have before and after pictures of our group departing for the PI. and returning. Leaving Alameda we would be a bit overweight and very pale. Six months in tropical heat and we were thinner and tan. Just like we’d been to a spa. The effects of climate variations on BMR.

My own experience in bodybuilding. I had my BMR checked so I could intelligently control my calories. A month period of steady lower calorie eating led to a decrease in my BMR as my body sensed starvation conditions. This can easily be remedied by cycling from below weight maintenance calorie meals to meals that are above weight maintenance calories. The body senses that all is well with the harvest and maintains a normal BMR. This technique resolves the dreaded dieter’s plateau.

Exercise can help with weight loss and maintenance, but it takes a lot of regular exercise to burn 300 extra calories per day. A donut a day can negate that.

If you are one of those genetically programmed with a slow BMR, then you will have a difficult time maintaining weight while eating in the present food environment, which includes so many things laced with salt and sugar to improve taste and the prevalence of high glycemic index foods. For someone who maintains weight at 1200 calories per day, it is easy to get heavy and even obese. Whether it is a matter of not recognizing the facts of how much each individual’s BMR matters to their weight, or just lack of willpower, is, IMO, one of the questions that society needs to come to grips with

Why has someone’s weight ballooned? Ah, that’s very complicated, but involves hormones and setpoints and such.

yes… in a social species eating more of your fare share murders others in the group. this is why marx called them FAT cats…

but note the person with the condition that gets away with it, has a survival advantage in certain conditions, which are not so uncommon.

this is so deep in us, that disparate impact arguments were used to acclimate the germans to putting jews in ovens as they were 14% of the population but controlled 40% of the businesses and banks.

note that the same technique was used to manipualate races and women… by pointing out that men are 50% of the population and have most of the bet jobs. and so on.

we are willing to murder cheaters..
as cheaters, by their actions, are willing to murder us

so all you need to turn women away from their own men and exterminate them… is to convince the women that they are cheated at every level!!!!!!!!!!!

then they will be more concerned with fairness unto death than actually living… as they woudl rather die fighting than live in peace.

anyway…

your reference to basal metabolism can be explained easily by physics.. as i am pointing out (beyond that it has to do with lots of things like vision illusions, real hunger vs fake hunger, ego, social cues, desire to change others minds, laziness, etc)

[for meade i should point out that the record for not eating is over a year… go ahead, take a look… you can go without food for months… so the hunger most complain about is not the real hunger voice… its the ID..]

back to basal.

i read the paper and its wrong…
its not written by a person with physics knowledge
(dr david and i discuss this alot and you have been privy to some of it)

keep digging and you will find that the first thing on the list is never explained. what does FASTER metabolism MEAN? energy is energy, and so you can only use it more efficiently or less efficiently. if you used it less efficiently, you wold be less fat as it would take more energy to do the same.

IF you dig down the the chemistry that makes up the idea of metabolism (i said look at ATP), your not going to find a collection of 20 different types in humans that make up a efficiency of conversion landscape. are you?

what you have are a few cycles that depend on oxygen and sugars and so on.

C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + heat ΔG = -2880 kJ per mole of C6H12O6

we ALL get he same energy conversion amount. its chemistry and physics. what is different is how many of these converters we have… if we exercise more often (even fidget) we have more, and we find work easier, and so do more. when we don’t exercise, the body pares down these things to save energy in divisions (as noted cell division is expensive), and copies.

so the more you have the more energy you can convert per unit time… you dont get more energy, you dont get less, you get rate change.

now that rate is then mediated by other rates…
look at the formula.. oxygen is key. so a higher respitory rate and oxygen presence will effect converstion rate.

do you think having twice as many cells that need more oxygen might diminish the amount of oxygen per unit use and so change the rate of using energy?

i tried to give you the STARTING point
once you start from that and know its all the same as its physics… then the rest is all thats built on top of it.

so.. now… if a fat person is using more oxygen, but cant breath more in… then what happens to converstion rate over time? its less. and when oxygen is not used, what is the method of creating energy? the ANEROBIC method…

so what you get is a person whose method of making energy is clipped by the lack of logistical supply. they tire out faster because of more lactic acid. also, they produce more lactic acid because they move more weight… they cant breath as much, as the fat clips breathing. so they are tired. the tired signal then sends a message to get more energy… the ONLY way the body can respond is to eat more…

for those who want to negate my facts by experience as they tried occam…

when i was 19, i was 6’3″ and 120 lbs..
when i was 30, i was 6’3″ and 280 lbs..
now i am 6’3″ and 225 lbs..

i can put it on and take it off…
because i ignore the first hungry voice…
you cant starve in a week… let alone a day

Longest Without Food in the World

If you want to know the record holder for the longest without food in the world, then you’re in the right place. Knowing how long you can live without water depends on the temperature, what you do during that time (resting vs working under the sun), how much fat you have in your body, and how fast you burn the calories. Without water you can last only about 2 1/2 days at 48 C (120 F) if you spend the whole time resting in the shade, though you could last as long as 12 days if the temperature stays below 21 C (70F). Wouth food however, you can survive for longer depending on the conditions mentioned above, an average of two weeks.

it would take over two weeks for the average person to starve… and for the obese, it can take a whole lot longer. [the longest periods on record was during experiments by nazis on fat people in camps]

so the faster metabolism in genetics is bs… its never quantified, its always up top, and its the excuse you can use to defer everything else.

but lets move to the rest fast if i can.

gender… all the things as far as larger size, so moving it around would require more energy for that alone… then more work, and so on… go ask some lady friends and they wont point to the different mechanical and other make ups of men and women, they will just be non specific (Then say men are lucky)

the overweight line is basically telling you what i just said above, but its a fact that floats, not a summary term for an index of knowledge about how the machine works!!! if you know the stuff i brought up, then the line gender embodies a whole lot of physics and chemistry… if you dont, then its political.

body surface area has to do with size… but its also a proportion.. it just repeats taht if your fat you have more cells and so have a higher base of energy you need to maintain things at the same point… however, if you dont maintain things at the same point, the fatter person can do without for a lot longer than the thin… so they dont mention the maintain things at the same point quotient, do they?

body fat percentage is next.

all they are doing is breaking out the physiological differences between men and women, and not telling you!!!!!!!!!!!!! ie. every point is the point that comes from the differences… but they make them seem equal by not pointing out that women have more or less, and so on. even womens hip sizes relative to men changes the mechanical efficiency.

and NONE of this has anything yet to do with the illusions of vision, and mind that are even on top of all this physics.

the only point that they bring up that i dont is your metabolic rate… and the hormone… however they dont tell you how its expressed!!! ie. if you were a quadrapelegic and you had high metabolic rate, how would it show? higher body temperature, which is the quitient higher up that they dont tell you how or why it varies.

so your document at the link is great propaganda, but its missing the understanding behind it for you to make sense of it… and even if you had some of that understanding, the physics then would generally be missing from our educations

the questions below are even funnier if you know the game they are playing. the game is, make men and women equal when they arent by not pointing out why the differences cluster and so change outcomes unequally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you know… That two people can have the same height and weight, but very different percentages of body fat?

why yes… because a WOMAN has a different percentage than a man, and both are people

so to a receptive female, its read that we have different biologists and all of us (my wife says that all the time..to which i point out modern medicine would not work if that was true… but she is picking up on the word game without unraveling it)

the variance of fat between two women of the same size and MORPHOLOGY (remember the ectomorphs etc?) will have near the same amount of fat….

so the point is to equalize people. which then fouls up understanding as the critical information is not there unless you learned it, as i did, from other places and can construct the cogent whole from the small hints.

others just fill in the blanks with rumor and so on. just as i complain about.

Did you know… That as we age, we tend to gain fat around our organs (“visceral fat”) that can’t be detected by measuring “skin folds” or even with a scale?

whoopie…we also loose mitochondria so its a wash… but thats why body max index is supposed to be done in water dunk tank.. not a caliper…

but the point is lost… as nothing else on the paper makes that hanging fact mean anything in terms of the paper. so you can construct what truth you want out of it and make it personal for you.

Did you know… That chances are that if you are losing weight, you will lose muscle as well as fat?

chance has nothing to do with it!!!!!!!!!! you dont accidently choose between starvation as a means to reach a goal temporariliy (which doesnt work), or lift weights to burn more, but not starve (which also doesnt work)

what works?

changing your lifestyle so that how you live and your biology matches… (now hows that for saying… dont be pc, and do the opposite of what they advise as far as diet. construct your live around your health)

the rest of the paper is work but useless..
so its nice you get a labor theory of value from effort
but you don’t get much as they are avoiding being in trouble for telling us the key differences which women cant change EVER.

so from a sociological view its great… it will make the target audience miserable… which will ahve them begging to the state to do something..

but from a health perspective… its not enough operable knowlege to work if you dont know the rest. its just hanging incomplete facts avoiding the key details that you need to apply them.

saying persons does not help a man or woman tune the information to their mechanical physical differences.

all the points they measure are fungible.
BMI changes based on what you do.
so a measure of it can tell you a bit about your curreent calorie level at base. but not really. because we dont actually lay in bed with pins on our noses measuring CO2 outputs… (but we can do that know with an oxygen sensor which people can wear relating average level of oxygen present to the rate of other things).

later when you lose weight, water, or change behavior, the machine adapts. so that is another thing we have not touched on. the adapting machine.

but physiologically its easy to work out whats going on, and why. but its a lot of details.

but if you knew logistics and that, you can break it down, and treat the body like a factory warehouse.

you can meaure it scurrent state and know X fat burns less calories, and X muscle more, and you have a storage of this, and that.

this is why jenny craig works..
and the card programs work.

they just give you an idiots way to track INPUT
and they distribute the input across time so that your not hungry. eventually you ACCLIMATE and can lose weight.

EVERYONE who checks into a hospital to diet loses weight. their metabolism difference magically disappears when they no longer can eat and not remember it.

by the way. too much fat, and it denies your brain as much functional oxygen, and so you think less than you do when think and healthy with capacity.. your brain uses as much as 20% of your energy…

your brain was not made to record the world as it is
its meant to perceive the world as it isnt so that you behave a certain way… ergo illusions of perception, quantity, and more.

for instance.. we are amazed that colors have an effect… men in red rooms are stronger than men in pink rooms… why?

well women love pink, and pink is also the color of their sex organs (Even in people of color), and pink gets dark and changes in older people…

so they become weaker because pink means they are with weaker women… so why are they stronger in red? red as a maximum would be during a kill, or fighting., either way, you better turn on the gas, either not to bleed, or to get more share of whats bleeding.

we have overcomplicated a simple thing…
the only reason that humans do that is that we are not willing to deal with the simple thing as it is…

if we did that, then we are back in the old world were fat is bad, except as a sign of wealth (Which thin is now a sign), and the reasons behind it are correct.

now.. all this would be enough but on top of it is that we have different drives, proportions to those drives, and sensitivities… which all move around…

that laast part is where we pay the piper or pretend not to and suffer not khnowing why

you want the extra pleasure of too much food?
then you deal with the extra negative of the consequences in weight, or the extra misery of doing without for a comparable time, or the extra pleasure of working harder..

guess which one men choose and guess which ones women choose and tend to try to skirt the bill?

note that this equality thing also doesnt let you say what i just said, so that you cant skew treatments to help the persons in a way that fits them. its a onesize all singel solution po mo socialist world now.

your either the mean average or your going to be bread out of existence due to the inability to adapt to a homogenous mean that is imposed by homogenous rules that pretend you get colors by mising all of them and making mud

You have yet to respond to any of the facts I’ve presented, by the way. But I’m finished spending time on this subject with you; you are not engaging in rational argument.

By the way, re Galileo, please see my article on the subject:

The Church had initially become upset with Galileo for two main reasons, neither of them the conventional “church vs. science” objection of legend. His first offense was committing theological overreach in their eyes when he stated that heliocentrism did not contradict the Bible because scripture should not be interpreted literally. The second was a kind of scientific hubris: Galileo’s assertion that heliocentrism had been proven (incontrovertibly, as it were) rather than being a tentative working theory. In addition, many of Galileo’s fellow scientists, although split on the matter, were more against Galileo than with him, just as Rick Perry said. The reason for their skepticism was not theology, it was that Galileo’s model was inconsistent with the best empirical observations of the time – although of course, in retrospect, his theory turned out to be correct.

The most important problem with Galileo’s heliocentric theory, and one that was widely recognized by his scientific contemporaries, was the lack of “observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun.” It was only much later that instruments were designed that were sensitive enough to detect the shifts. Therefore, Galileo lacked scientific evidence to prove his theory, and many leading astronomers of the day rejected it. The renowned Tycho Brahe was one of them; he had his own competing theory, which was a Geo-Heliocentric hybrid in which the sun revolved around the earth but the other planets revolved around the sun, a system that conformed better than Galileo’s with the lack of observed stellar parallax and which remained in scientific favor for a long time.

I have written that Galileo’s theory turned out to be correct, but that is actually an over-simplication. Galileo was indeed correct in stating that the planets revolve around the sun. But he also believed that the sun is the fixed and unmoving center of the universe, which we now know to be incorrect.

This error does not contradict the fact that Galileo was a scientific giant. But the story is a reminder that even the brilliant make mistakes, and that science does not advance by simple progression from ignorance to perfect knowledge, nor is it proven by consensus. It moves in fits and starts, sometimes with small wavering steps and meanderings, sometimes with great leaps. Sometimes it lingers for a while in blind alleyways. But it is always incomplete, and must continually be tested and questioned.

Us somebodies are asking and answering questions

My point is about average intake vs. calorie expenditure for an individual, of course. My point is not about averages for the overweight as a group versus averages for the thin as a group, as I explained above. In those groups, the thin group tends to be more physically active on average, as I said.

I will have to cut short your very long comment, but since I haven’t read it yet (and don’t have time to read it now) I’ll leave it up there till I do get around to it.