If you are smaller would it be harder to lose weight?
Options
Allthingsglitter
Posts: 15 Member
I am 5'2 and weighed 110. Used mfp for 15 days and got down to 106. The weight I lost must have just been water weight.
I want to get down to 100 pounds, would it be harder for me to lose since I am smaller?
I want to get down to 100 pounds, would it be harder for me to lose since I am smaller?
0
Replies
-
Why do you want to get to an underweight level?10
-
collectingblues wrote: »Why do you want to get to an underweight level?
It's just barely underweight per the old BMI and in the healthy range per the "new" one (which allows outliers - tall and short - to be heavier and lighter respectively and still classified as healthy). It's certainly light but depending on body type it could be a perfectly reasonable aesthetic goal, particularly if she doesn't carry a lot of muscle. No need for any pearl-clutching without more info IMO.
OP, yes, it is generally harder to lose the smaller you are, since smaller bodies (all other things remaining equal) burn fewer calories than larger ones.
At your weight, you might find it easier to eat at your maintenance calories and start an exercise program with the goal of "recomp": building muscle while not adding fat (as you would on a "bulk": building muscle and gaining fat while eating in a surplus). It's a slow solution but might be the better choice to provide you with the look you want (presumably, leaner with more definition and less fat) without losing muscle or dropping your weight to a point that is difficult to sustain and maybe not ideal from a health perspective, although as I said above that can depend on your specific body as to whether it's healthiest near the bottom or the top of the healthy range.6 -
Try measuring your weight loss by a percent of body weight. For example: let's say you are dieting with your 200 lb friend. Friend loses 5 lbs, but you only lose 2.75 off of a 110 lbs. You have each lost the same percentage of weight off of your body. That is why some of these weight loss contests are BS.1
-
collectingblues wrote: »Why do you want to get to an underweight level?
It's just barely underweight per the old BMI and in the healthy range per the "new" one (which allows outliers - tall and short - to be heavier and lighter respectively and still classified as healthy). It's certainly light but depending on body type it could be a perfectly reasonable aesthetic goal, particularly if she doesn't carry a lot of muscle. No need for any pearl-clutching without more info IMO.
OP, yes, it is generally harder to lose the smaller you are, since smaller bodies (all other things remaining equal) burn fewer calories than larger ones.
At your weight, you might find it easier to eat at your maintenance calories and start an exercise program with the goal of "recomp": building muscle while not adding fat (as you would on a "bulk": building muscle and gaining fat while eating in a surplus). It's a slow solution but might be the better choice to provide you with the look you want (presumably, leaner with more definition and less fat) without losing muscle or dropping your weight to a point that is difficult to sustain and maybe not ideal from a health perspective, although as I said above that can depend on your specific body as to whether it's healthiest near the bottom or the top of the healthy range.
I'm not sure that I'm buying the "new" BMI calculator. It's says that 109 lbs is the bottom of the safe weight range for someone who is 5'6", which is BS by any stretch of the imagination. I'm 5'6" with a small frame and at 112 lbs I was underweight, malnourished, and suffering the health issues associated with anorexia. I would use that calculator with great caution.10 -
the new one says my healthy range is x to x and even with my BMI being in that range says I'm obese...0
-
crooked_left_hook wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Why do you want to get to an underweight level?
It's just barely underweight per the old BMI and in the healthy range per the "new" one (which allows outliers - tall and short - to be heavier and lighter respectively and still classified as healthy). It's certainly light but depending on body type it could be a perfectly reasonable aesthetic goal, particularly if she doesn't carry a lot of muscle. No need for any pearl-clutching without more info IMO.
OP, yes, it is generally harder to lose the smaller you are, since smaller bodies (all other things remaining equal) burn fewer calories than larger ones.
At your weight, you might find it easier to eat at your maintenance calories and start an exercise program with the goal of "recomp": building muscle while not adding fat (as you would on a "bulk": building muscle and gaining fat while eating in a surplus). It's a slow solution but might be the better choice to provide you with the look you want (presumably, leaner with more definition and less fat) without losing muscle or dropping your weight to a point that is difficult to sustain and maybe not ideal from a health perspective, although as I said above that can depend on your specific body as to whether it's healthiest near the bottom or the top of the healthy range.
I'm not sure that I'm buying the "new" BMI calculator. It's says that 109 lbs is the bottom of the safe weight range for someone who is 5'6", which is BS by any stretch of the imagination. I'm 5'6" with a small frame and at 112 lbs I was underweight, malnourished, and suffering the health issues associated with anorexia. I would use that calculator with great caution.
That calculator is intended to be more accurate for those who are taller or shorter than average (and should, in fact, be pretty much identical to the old for someone 5'6"). I think you might have made a typo, since when I entered 5'6"/66 inches, I got a healthy range of 114 - 154 lbs and 109 lbs was shown as "underweight".1 -
A small body burns less calories overall, yet still needs a certain amount of nutrition. So a small person will be unable to create large deficits. Accuracy can be very important. For example if you're only able to burn 1700 calories in a day and eat 1450 then a few errors in your food log can easily wipe out your deficit. If you're burning 2500 per day and aiming to eat 1750 there is more room for human error before it results in maintenance.6
-
crooked_left_hook wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Why do you want to get to an underweight level?
It's just barely underweight per the old BMI and in the healthy range per the "new" one (which allows outliers - tall and short - to be heavier and lighter respectively and still classified as healthy). It's certainly light but depending on body type it could be a perfectly reasonable aesthetic goal, particularly if she doesn't carry a lot of muscle. No need for any pearl-clutching without more info IMO.
OP, yes, it is generally harder to lose the smaller you are, since smaller bodies (all other things remaining equal) burn fewer calories than larger ones.
At your weight, you might find it easier to eat at your maintenance calories and start an exercise program with the goal of "recomp": building muscle while not adding fat (as you would on a "bulk": building muscle and gaining fat while eating in a surplus). It's a slow solution but might be the better choice to provide you with the look you want (presumably, leaner with more definition and less fat) without losing muscle or dropping your weight to a point that is difficult to sustain and maybe not ideal from a health perspective, although as I said above that can depend on your specific body as to whether it's healthiest near the bottom or the top of the healthy range.
I'm not sure that I'm buying the "new" BMI calculator. It's says that 109 lbs is the bottom of the safe weight range for someone who is 5'6", which is BS by any stretch of the imagination. I'm 5'6" with a small frame and at 112 lbs I was underweight, malnourished, and suffering the health issues associated with anorexia. I would use that calculator with great caution.
That calculator is intended to be more accurate for those who are taller or shorter than average (and should, in fact, be pretty much identical to the old for someone 5'6"). I think you might have made a typo, since when I entered 5'6"/66 inches, I got a healthy range of 114 - 154 lbs and 109 lbs was shown as "underweight".
You're right, I must have accidentally put in 65" instead of 66".0 -
I'm a tad skeptical on the bottom ends of those bmi calculators. I'm 5'8 and it starts at 121lbs as a healthy weight. That's anorexic levels at my height.1
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I'm a tad skeptical on the bottom ends of those bmi calculators. I'm 5'8 and it starts at 121lbs as a healthy weight. That's anorexic levels at my height.
122 lbs would be BMI = 18.5. Very few women are healthy at a BMI that low - and they're mostly short.
The original "healthy" range for women was 20-25, and it only got adjusted down to accommodate short fine-boned women. At 5'8, a BMI of 20 would be 131 pounds.0 -
There is no way that I would be healthy at the bottom end of my BMI which is around 90 pounds. I'd be skin and bone. I wouldn't want to go under around 21-22 really because I am sure lower than this would negatively impact on my health.
As far as being harder to lose weight as a shortie I'd say, not really, just a bit different as there isn't as much wriggle room for treats. We don't have the extra calories to play around with if we want to reach our nutritional requirements to have too many treats but that can be overcome with exercise. We need smaller portion sizes but as we require less we are no hungrier than anyone else. On top of that, as we approach our goal weight we may need to be under that magical 1200 calorie mark to lose more weight if we are under 5 foot as our BMR will often drop below this amount.
Weight loss is so much a mental thing and it will only be harder for the vertically challenged of us if we let it be.0 -
collectingblues wrote: »Why do you want to get to an underweight level?
It's just barely underweight per the old BMI and in the healthy range per the "new" one (which allows outliers - tall and short - to be heavier and lighter respectively and still classified as healthy). It's certainly light but depending on body type it could be a perfectly reasonable aesthetic goal, particularly if she doesn't carry a lot of muscle. No need for any pearl-clutching without more info IMO.
OP, yes, it is generally harder to lose the smaller you are, since smaller bodies (all other things remaining equal) burn fewer calories than larger ones.
At your weight, you might find it easier to eat at your maintenance calories and start an exercise program with the goal of "recomp": building muscle while not adding fat (as you would on a "bulk": building muscle and gaining fat while eating in a surplus). It's a slow solution but might be the better choice to provide you with the look you want (presumably, leaner with more definition and less fat) without losing muscle or dropping your weight to a point that is difficult to sustain and maybe not ideal from a health perspective, although as I said above that can depend on your specific body as to whether it's healthiest near the bottom or the top of the healthy range.
At 5'2" OP is hardly an "outlier" on height (assuming female).0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Why do you want to get to an underweight level?
It's just barely underweight per the old BMI and in the healthy range per the "new" one (which allows outliers - tall and short - to be heavier and lighter respectively and still classified as healthy). It's certainly light but depending on body type it could be a perfectly reasonable aesthetic goal, particularly if she doesn't carry a lot of muscle. No need for any pearl-clutching without more info IMO.
OP, yes, it is generally harder to lose the smaller you are, since smaller bodies (all other things remaining equal) burn fewer calories than larger ones.
At your weight, you might find it easier to eat at your maintenance calories and start an exercise program with the goal of "recomp": building muscle while not adding fat (as you would on a "bulk": building muscle and gaining fat while eating in a surplus). It's a slow solution but might be the better choice to provide you with the look you want (presumably, leaner with more definition and less fat) without losing muscle or dropping your weight to a point that is difficult to sustain and maybe not ideal from a health perspective, although as I said above that can depend on your specific body as to whether it's healthiest near the bottom or the top of the healthy range.
At 5'2" OP is hardly an "outlier" on height (assuming female).
Yeah, but all the original BMI studies were on men. So, "average height" in terms of BMI is really average male height.2 -
I am 5'2 and weighed 110. Used mfp for 15 days and got down to 106. The weight I lost must have just been water weight.
I want to get down to 100 pounds, would it be harder for me to lose since I am smaller?
Ashley, 100 pounds at 5 ft 2 is considered underweight. You don't need to lose weight.
5 -
Some major red flags here in your history OP. I really think you might benefit from some sort of medical professional help than mfp. The further down the rabbit hole you go, the harder it will be to come back. Please get help before you do serious damage to yourself.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10528430/how-much-food-would-you-have-to-eat-over-time-to-gain-weight
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10529284/why-did-i-suddenly-gain-0-5-pounds/p1
5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Why do you want to get to an underweight level?
It's just barely underweight per the old BMI and in the healthy range per the "new" one (which allows outliers - tall and short - to be heavier and lighter respectively and still classified as healthy). It's certainly light but depending on body type it could be a perfectly reasonable aesthetic goal, particularly if she doesn't carry a lot of muscle. No need for any pearl-clutching without more info IMO.
OP, yes, it is generally harder to lose the smaller you are, since smaller bodies (all other things remaining equal) burn fewer calories than larger ones.
At your weight, you might find it easier to eat at your maintenance calories and start an exercise program with the goal of "recomp": building muscle while not adding fat (as you would on a "bulk": building muscle and gaining fat while eating in a surplus). It's a slow solution but might be the better choice to provide you with the look you want (presumably, leaner with more definition and less fat) without losing muscle or dropping your weight to a point that is difficult to sustain and maybe not ideal from a health perspective, although as I said above that can depend on your specific body as to whether it's healthiest near the bottom or the top of the healthy range.
At 5'2" OP is hardly an "outlier" on height (assuming female).
Agreed. 5'4" is the average height for women in the US. 5'2" isn't unusually short.0 -
Speak with a health professional op.1
-
It can be a little more difficult for short people to lose weight because we are working with tighter deficits while still trying to get all the nutrients we need. Also, you're already at such a low weight, it could be a real push to get that low. Why do you want to be 100? I'm 5'1" and my bottom on the bmi scale is 95lbs but I'm not sure it would be sustainable to get down there and stay there.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions