View Single Post
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 13:08
wbahn's Avatar
wbahn wbahn is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 6,384
Plan: Atkins-ish, post-WLS
Stats: 324/269/174 Male 72 inches
Progress: 37%
Location: Southern Colorado, USA

My gut feel is that he's being a bit oversimplistic, too.

He is basically claiming that the total energy expenditure, and hence caloric needs, of all humans falls within a narrow range and it doesn't matter how much or how little physical activity you do.

But that flies very much in the face of the reality that people from all walks of life that are in high-activity roles for any amount of time, be it athletes or special ops soldiers, (can and need to) consume a lot more calories than those same people can when they stop being active.

From a personal standpoint I can attest to that. When I was in shape and very physically active I didn't have to watch what I ate at all and kept my weight in the 180 lb to 200 lb range. But as soon as I stopped doing most of those activities, my weight exploded on a fraction of the caloric intake.

It doesn't surprise me that those natives have metabolisms that are nice and efficient enabling them to do a lot of work on the same caloric intake we do. But what about those natives that consume that same intake and, for whatever reason, are no more active than we are?
Reply With Quote