<p>and it keeps you in shape. you can bet your little brain exercies aren't going to do that. or keep your weight down for that matter</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is, purely as a matter of fact, totally and blatantly incorrect. I have a number of friends who eat in that region daily, and because of their ridiculous metabolisms maintain a normal weight (or in one friend's case, almost too low a weight). It is uncommon yes, but not impossible for people to eat that much and maintain weight.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The people actually doing so, though, are probably MORE rare than the pro basketball player.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Physical exercise like swimming and running never seems to affect my weight ever, only stamina and muscle firmness, which AFAIK are issues quite unrelated to weight.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong again. I'd much rather carry 30 pounds of muscle than carry that same 30 pounds in fat. Weight and BMI really aren't the greatest tools to measure "healthy." Remember, "don't judge a book by its cover."</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I've never lost weight that way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're not doing enough of it. Or, you're burning fat and building muscle, which keeps your weight the same (or even increases it) but makes you more "toned" (you mentioned muscle firmness - there is no such thing, what's happening is that there is less fat around the muscle so it feels more firm).</p>
<p>Weight is a terrible measure of fitness. Only wrestlers trying to qualify for a weight class ever need to "lose weight." The other %99.9 of people want a change in body composition (fat-muscle proportion), which can involve gaining weight, since muscle weighs more than fat. Often it does involve the loss of body weight, but weight loss in itself is not the goal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The people actually doing so, though, are probably MORE rare than the pro basketball player.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought so too, but I googled it and it looks like lots of people (mountain bikers, serious athletes etc.) burn calories in that range. Fit people burn a lot more calories just sitting around, and I'd guess that once you add substantial levels of exercise, calorie expenditure can hit 8000. But nobody has a metabolism that naturally can go through 8,000 calories as a resting rate - that's impossible.</p>
<p>It really depends on your metabolism. If you can eat that much and stay fit why not? I'd love to have your metabolism genes. I have horrible metabolism so I really have to watch what I eat. This is coming from someone who has lost over 50 pounds in a year.</p>
<p>galoisien you make me laugh. High five for most entertainig thread for awhile.</p>
<p>What's that supposed to mean? :(</p>
<p>No no no it wasnt an insult! You got me actually thinking whether or not thinking had a significant effect on calorie burn, and it was entertainingly written :)</p>
<p>So lets take this 'theory' to it's logical conclustion; in fact, we even have a perfect community that actually embraces it! All those supergenius 'Orientals' that everyone talks about are, mostly, fairly thin people. Thus, you can assume that all the die-hard thinking they partake in at those scientific institutes back home is helping them maintain such low body weights. Surely?</p>
<p>Or is it the fact that most of them don't have enough food, eat mostly rice based products, and engage in back-breaking manual labor for most of the week? Nah, it can't be the physical activity, it's the MENTAL activity.</p>
<p>People of Asian decent are statistically more likely to have higher amounts of salivary amylase, an enzyme that breaks down sugar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or is it the fact that most of them don't have enough food, eat mostly rice based products, and engage in back-breaking manual labor for most of the week?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I assume this was satire in the other direction, because rice is pretty carbohydrate-packed.</p>