Why is losing weight so effortless for some and so difficult for others?
Replies
-
Stupid information is also to blame.
HAES, magazines that push fad diets, nonsense like ~starvation mode~ (which someone with 30% bodyfat is certainly not in) self-diagnosing with rare diseases make people think they are not responsible for themselves.
I can't lose weight, it must be dark magic, the Illuminati, my metabolism is hibernating and the stars aren't right.
Can't be what I eat, nope!0 -
Whitezombiegirl wrote: »Attitude plays a big part. Some people are ready to totally own their responsibility for weight loss or gain while others feel more comfortable in the victim zone, blaming their hormones, the state of the nation and their parents.
I have always been accused of being that miracle skinny person, despite a lifetime of struggling to keep my weight in range .
Agreed- and the same here. I'm not 'naturally thin'. I pass up all sorts of additional food to maintain my weight. Meh, it's JUST food!
I know that i am lucky in that:
- I'm not an emotional eater (emotional shopper- guilty!)
- I don't binge (I may overeat sometimes e.g. order a dessert, or eat an extra slice of pizza- but that's okay to me)
- I'm not interested in food- never have been. It's not my entertainment
- I rarley drink alcohol, I prefer diet soda (once or twice a year) and I don't drink lattes/ frappes etc.
- I am a great home cook and was rasied cooking low-cal healthy food (it's a bit too much low-fat but it was the 80's when I learnt to cook- therefore I hate the taste and feel of fat in my mouth and on my lips)
- I have a really tiny appetite- always have, and I eat extreamly slowly- always have. I'm fine with fairly low cals.
- I'm active (not so much recently though due to on-going ear infection)
- I don't like most 'addies' e.g. mayonaise, salad dressing, creamy sauces- though I love tomato ketchup (sugar)
- I eat 80% paleo by choice - pasta, rice, potatos, most bread- all taste gross to me and affect my IBS.
- My most favourite food is salad- always has been since I was a child.
- I don't like most take-ways (just pizza) and don't eat out for entertainment (it's boring!)- i like to dance instead.
BUT:
- I love sweet, carby things and eat too many of them (at the expense of protien and fat)
- I get ravenous at ovulation and PMS ( but during my period the cramps cause me to feel queesy and sick so i end up under-eating - so it balences itsellf out by the end of the month). My eating patterns have aleways been up and down- it's normal for me.
I've never been overweight- I've had periods on the upper end of the BMI due to being a lazy conveniance cook at times (university and recently a period of greif) but i was raised on CICO by my mother who was very keen for us to know about food and nutrition (70's/80's nutrition) and how to maintain our weight, whilst including little treats each day (a two finger kitkat or a couple of cookies or small packet of crisps/ chips, and a small slice of home-made cake on a Sunday).
Disclaimer I'm not here to lose weight now- just to log for nutritional info.
I may be entering the land of the "naturally thin", but I haven't always been there.
Your list makes sense to me. In a way I'm lucky too, I just had to figure out some things - this is my version:
- I'm not an emotional eater (I thought I was, but I just need food that tastes good).
- I don't binge (I just compulsively overate because I didn't trust my appetite or serving sizes). (I still overeat if the food is exceptionally good.)
- I don't like alcohol, and I don't care for soda, neither diet nor sugary. I have learnt to drink my coffee and tea black and without sugar.
- I grew up with a mother who cooked, and I have always cooked to some extent, but after I stopped being afraid of fat, my food has started to taste amazing, and I love to cook now.
- I leant to understand my appetite with the "hunger scale" and some deep introspection (a little scary actually; you get so much "feels").
- I don't have a car, and I live in a place where I can do most errands by walking. My legs are stocky, but sturdy.
- I have learnt to like more foods. I eat much like we did in the 50's.
- As mentioned above, I love to cook, so I rarely eat out, but when I do, I want to eat good quality.
- I never even notice my menstrual cycle (except for the most obvious part)
My achilles is my cravings for sugary, fatty, supertasty foods. It is mitigated to a large extent by eating well and not depriving myself. I don't deny myself candy. I just prefer to not eat it.0 -
honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I exercise a lot to be able to eat more, and I can't imagine doing much more, to be honest, so I wouldn't expect a smaller woman to do that either just so she can eat as much as I do...princessbride42 wrote: »It took me almost ten years after deciding to lose weight to learn all the things I needed to learn about nutrition in order to be successful. But once I finally figured out the lifestyle and equation that worked for me, it did look easy and simple from the outside. But it has been a long difficult journey for me. Thankfully I started young, and before I was very overweight, so it had been easier than some experience.
Yep. Actually 15 years for me to be mentally ready to do the change and to want it enough to be successful. And it WAS easy, much easier than I thought it would be, but only because I was determined.
Notice the past tense though. I've been maintaining for a year and it's been really hard. My appetite has skyrocketed since I got close to my goal weight. I go to bed hungry half the time, and that's on maintenance calories. So I'd add that people's satiety signals and hormones DEFINITELY have something to do with it too... Those people who are 'so full on 1200 calories' will probably have a easier time losing than people who still go to bed hungry on 1600, even with a similar diet.
I'm definitely not claiming it's easy for short women. No matter how much exercise they do, they're limited by the inherent lower lean body mass that they have. But not everyone has to eat 1200 to lose. For those that do have to eat at that level, I could see it being much harder. Especially for working in treats. It is so much easier for me to work in treats than someone eating almost half of what I eat.
That said, I still think if it's physically possible, people should try to increase their activity levels. I feel like this will help in long term adherence in multiple ways:- You can eat more due to the increase activity.
- Exercise/activity can lead to a healthier life.
- Being active can allow people to retain their mobility longer as they age.
- Having other physical goals can help people stay focused after they achieve their goal weight.
0 -
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
0 -
Unlearning can be just as brutal (okay, "challenging") as learning. And for some, it can take a while to put head knowledge into practice.0
-
Robincantrell21 wrote: »I dont know if this is ok to ask, but I am currently 165 pounds and I would like to lose around 35-40 pounds in 3 months. I usually record my log- in's on myfitnesspal, and it says in 5 weeks I will lose 15-16 lbs. if I were to eat 1,100 calories per day. But I dont know how accurate that is. Can someone provide advice on what I can do to shed this weight off and keep it off?
You'd be better starting a new thread because your post will likely get lost in this one.
That being said, your goal is unreasonable. 35-40 pounds in 3 months is 2.7-3.1 pounds per week. Simply put, you're not fat enough to make that possible, 1100 calories per day is below the healthy calorie minimums, and the 5 week predictions play out for very few people.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
Lol I am a 5' woman, and my desire and capacity for cupcakes outstrips any man I have ever known.0 -
Yup, it's hard. The pounds come off like magic while I sleep. I don't have to physically remove them, so that part is easy. The rest of it is difficult.
My whole life has changed. Everything is different. That took making a bodrillion changes and some of them required serious struggling. Some weren't too tough, but many were. I continue to work and make changes.
I set out to get healthier, but had no idea what I was in for. If someone had told me all the changes it would take, I probably wouldn't have started. I'd have said, "That's not the life I want!"
Yes, it's been really tough. It's the hardest thing I've ever done and has taken longer than anything except school.
I'm so glad I've done it and the life I have is the one I want and am happy to have, but YES on hard.
0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »Unlearning can be just as brutal (okay, "challenging") as learning. And for some, it can take a while to put head knowledge into practice.
Yes. My fear of dietary fat was ingrained in my cells. I didn't believe that I didn't have to exercise to lose weight, so I needed a long time to experience it for myself. And I had quite a lot of "portion distortion" as a former member of the "clean plate club".0 -
Hi, I'm DeguelloTex and I had 14 chocolate cupcakes with chocolate frosting over the weekend. Then we ran out.refuseresist wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
Lol I am a 5' woman, and my desire and capacity for cupcakes outstrips any man I have ever known.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.0 -
oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
ETA: And, really, it we're going to start listing all the ways in which the world doesn't fit us, I'm 6'9" and I can match you gripe for gripe with some left over.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
Yup, best part about massive steaks? Steak salad the next day. No need to reheat and potentially ruin a perfectly cooked steak.0 -
I often wonder why we don't just stop being hungry when our calorie intake is fulfilled. That can be annoying0
-
honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
I'm 5'1" and that's exactly what I weigh right now. I'm currently losing weight too quickly eating up to 1700 calories a day. I'm 53 years old. I'm pretty active though.
So no, you don't have to cut your calories down to a ridiculous level as you say.
0 -
I eat great, exercise 5 days a week, and drink PLENTY of water. I don't indulge in sweets, alcohol or junk food. But, I still can't seem to have a BM every day. I think it's slowing my weight loss, *kitten* as metabolism.0
-
oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
To be fair, most restaurant meals don't fit ANYONE's requirements.0 -
I hate cupcakes and especially mini cupcakes. I cannot think of a time in my life when I thought "I would like a teeny tiny cake."0
-
I have no idea. I was chubby/overweight my whole life for as long as I remember and well into my early 20s, and then I just... kinda decided and did it, no hassle.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?0 -
True ^^.kommodevaran wrote: »
Regardless of how small I am or how active i've been - I still want to eat just as much as someone who has a calorie budget twice as big as mine.
I'm 5'3/5'4ish,128lbs and have a much bigger appetite than my 5'11, 230lb boyfriend.
To lose weight successfully, i HAVE to exercise to allow for extra food.
Never in a million years could i live off 1200 cals a day. Even 1500 is a struggle!
0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »
True ^^.kommodevaran wrote: »
Regardless of how small I am or how active i've been - I still want to eat just as much as someone who has a calorie budget twice as big as mine.
I'm 5'3/5'4ish,128lbs and have a much bigger appetite than my 5'11, 230lb boyfriend.
To lose weight successfully, i HAVE to exercise to allow for extra food.
Never in a million years could i live off 1200 cals a day.
Truth! It's a good thing I enjoy exercise because it would be rather painful otherwise.0 -
Restaurant meals are to satisfy the biggest and hungriest person at the table - think giant hungry bear man. They have to do that, or we would all complain they were stingy and eat elsewhere. They follow market forces.
Every woman and many men need a restaurant strategy. Take some home, leave it behind, whatever.
My restaurant strategy is skip breakfast and lunch. Even on 1200, which is what I am on, you can have a nice meal if you do that (not a technique that suits everyone, I will admit).0 -
I was into the cabinets after any sugar that wasn't locked down ever since I can remember. Really don't care if it's genetic, some early life trauma I seem to have forgotten about (I was a happy little toddler in a happy little home), or if space aliens landed, pointed at me with laser fingers, and declared, "You! You shall be a sugar eater all your days!"
Doesn't matter that much (though I'd be curious to understand the science behind it, as much as I can). My default mode (to borrow someone else's phrase) is eat all the sugary stuff.
MFP cleared up a huge puzzle for me on why I can't do that to my heart's content and exercise it off. It just isn't possible to burn off thousands of calories a day of indulgence. So that helps me with my mindset. I get it. I have to do everything possible with my mindset (#1 thing), my diet (appetite and craving suppression), and my activities to fight that beast.
Oh well. There are people stuck with much worse. No screw that, I hate it. Gimme a pill I can that forever after makes anything with added sugar taste like rancid dog turds, I'll take it, thanks! The greater misery of other people does not even fractionally reduce my own misery.
Uh oh, looks like I'm in pity party essay mode today.0 -
First, one thing I pick up here on the boards is a skewed time factor. Only a handful of the population will have experienced a sudden weight gain due to medication etc; for most it has been a gradual gain across many years. And then after several weeks or maybe a month there's all this frustration that 'it's not working!' Which kind of makes me smirk inside. I think you have to just patiently chip away at calorie restriction & fitness goals while accepting that actual weight loss involves some degree of nonlinear internal phenomenas that absolutely will occur over time if one remains consistent & patient.
Secondly, people who don't take the time to weigh everything really are flying blind. After almost 8 weeks of weighing every last thing (even if it's logged in my diary as a measure, I've weighed it too in grams to confirm!) I can really see how the eyes underestimate. Last night I ate without measuring at my daughters birthday party. Because I'm so familiar with weights I made very conservative estimates and I easily exceeded my calorie goal for the day by a landslide! If it's just one day here or there it's fine but doing that even one day of every week could wipe away a lot of deficit!
Thirdly, yes, the 1200 calorie people seem misguided. If they weigh what they say they weigh and they work out the way they say they work out very few of them should be eating 1200 calories! I haven't logged an official 'weigh in' yet but I'm wearing smaller clothes & people are commenting on my appearance and I average 1700 or 1800 calories a day walking +100k steps a week. And that is obviously keeping me in a gradual deficit. When I run my numbers at my eventual goal weight with the same level of activity I can see a baseline of about 1500 calories just to exist and about 2000 calories to maintain that weight at my current activity level. I can only extrapolate that one would have to be an exceedingly tiny adult to ever attempt 1200 calories a day...
Anyway, those are the things that jump out at me: lack of persistence due to unrealistic time frames, failure to get consistent & accurate measures of food volume, and unsustainably draconian calorie restriction goals.0 -
oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?
60 bucks for a single meal? Holy moly.0 -
It's easier said than done because it mentally requires a lot of work to make the changes.
I'm an emotional eater I've been tired and worked up the last few days and it's really difficult to stick to my guns and not pig out.
I also love food and love cooking. Some people hate to cook when they get home from work but I love it. It chills me out and I feel like I'm being creative. I want to cook things and then end up eating them. That has helped a bit as it gives me opportunities to create healthier meals but then you see a cake recipie and you have to resist or make it and give it to someone else
0 -
Well, the still being hungry part doesn't really have anything to do with the oversized meal. Presumably, you'd still be hungry if the meal were smaller. That's a limit of your calorie intake, and not related to the size of the meal.oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?
Yeah, I'm acutely aware of many additional challenges for people in just about anything if they aren't in the fat part of the bell curve. I can see how it might be annoying not to be able to get a meal sized for more petite calorie requirements. I also know that it can be annoying to walk out of a restaurant still hungry because the meal wasn't proportioned for a guy who's three standard deviations from the mean. Hell, for that matter, I know how annoying it is to use a salad bar at which the sneeze guard is about stomach high.
So, I definitely see that there are additional challenges for you and there are additional challenges with which you don't have to deal.0 -
Restaurant meals are to satisfy the biggest and hungriest person at the table - think giant hungry bear man. They have to do that, or we would all complain they were stingy and eat elsewhere. They follow market forces.
Every woman and many men need a restaurant strategy. Take some home, leave it behind, whatever.
My restaurant strategy is skip breakfast and lunch. Even on 1200, which is what I am on, you can have a nice meal if you do that (not a technique that suits everyone, I will admit).
I would faint before I made it to the restaurant. I create an additional deficit over about five days by eating back fewer exercise calories.0 -
Personally, I think it's all in the mind set. It still, all comes down to CICO, but as you age and your metabolism slows, or (sometimes I'm just lazier), you get less bang for your buck (less CI allowance), thus you have to work a bit harder than when you were in your 20s. To counter this, I need to have a better mindset if I'm cutting.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions