Short people get the shaft
Replies
-
singingflutelady wrote: »I'm tall and don't have a tdee of 2000+. My bmr is 1316 and I'm 5'8 and sedentary due to health issues.
5'8" is considered tall for a lady but many consider 5'8" short for a guy, which annoys me because I'm a 5'8" guy. LOL!
Anyway, I am currently maintaining at 158# at 8.7%BF on 2100 cals/day.
FYI, I started maintaining at 162 @ 16% BF on 1800 cals 8 months ago. Dropped 4# while recomping 8# during which time my cals increased from 1800 to 2100, as my LBM increased and my BF dropped.
I believe this happened because LBM burns more energy than BF, whether at rest or not.1 -
I am 4'11 and the charts of height vs. weight and calorie intake are always off. The US charts say I should be between 95-115 lbs.
That is quite ridiculous to begin with.
My base calorie intake is supposed to be around 1200 per day, also not really doable and have an adult life.
Here's what I learned from my nutritionist and also my personal trainer when I lived in Europe:
Short men and women gain muscle more rapidly than taller people.
If we are weighed on a scale that measures fat, tissue, water, organ mass, muscle mass you will see that the reason you frequently lose only .25 of a pound after a week of dieting and exercising is because you have gained muscle and dropped fat, which is the goal.
Our body shapes change rapidly with just a 5 lb loss, again because we are the kings and queens of gaining muscle. We also tend to lose muscle more slowly.
If you accurately measure the muscle, which is an active tissue, your calorie needs will fall in line with a taller person's I.e., 2000 calories a day.
Maintaining muscle is the key. It bounces the Metabolism waaaaay up!
You have to have a life. Both my trainer and nutritionist were stunned that I wasn't drinking wine, and passing on desserts always.
They taught me to average out my daily calories over a week. If I have wine and dessert one day, i will lighten up what I eat the next day so I am still keeping my diet. That really empowers you. It is not sticking to a rigid number on a chart each day, it is...LIVING.
See if you can find a scale that measures more than just weight.
Gives you a whole new prospective on your bod.
14 -
Everyone has challenges and positives.
I generally feel that I am luckier in a way to be shorter and smaller. I require less food to function. I am satisfied with less calories. I have less food to buy and prepare.
Cons are having a step ladder live in my kitchen and I think a similar weight gain can often be more noticeable on shorter people.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?0 -
I have no idea what my BMR is and my TDEE varies greatly since my daily activity varies greatly. But I maintain on roughly (don't measure or log) 2000 calories per day. I am sometimes hungry. I do wish I could eat more even when I'm not hungry. I am glad I'm not short and have to eat less.0
-
deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
Ohhh, that I'm not sure of. It's possible though, given the whole hedonic eating thing. Let me see if I can find anything.0 -
It pretty much means no wiggle room for restaurants/potlucks/any snacks or treats/glass of wine/etc.. which is what makes it hard (rather than actual hunger). And it only takes a few pounds on a short frame to look really fat.
Someone above commented about envying us for having to lose less weight to drop a BMI point.. well, on the flip side, it took that tall person a hell of a lot more over-eating to get there in the first place.
I'm 5'2 and my TDEE according to FitBit and actual results is 2200. I never had a problem having room for restaurants/potlucks/snacks/treats/wine even when losing.
Being short does not automatically doom a person to a minuscule calorie target. Working hard to increase my NEAT, and as a result, my TDEE has had a lot of benefit for me, and I think it's something that people don't consider that they have some control over. They assume that because they are short, or have a desk job (I do), or are over a certain age (I'm 42) they will have to be extremely restrictive with calories in order to achieve their goals. That hasn't been my experience at all.
6 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
If the claim is that BMI breaks down outside of normal height, that's documented.
But the statement that "if you eat more calories, you'll have a higher BMI" is a Null value statement comparable to "if you let go of a pencil it will hit the floor"
OTOH, "maintaining a similar weight on a higher number of calories" statement is BMR/TDEE not BMI.2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
Update: this is the closest thing that I could find: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Cooper19/publication/13530239_Weight-height_relationships_among_eight_populations_of_West_African_origin_The_case_against_constant_BMI_standards/links/54432d8c0cf2a76a3ccb0e01/Weight-height-relationships-among-eight-populations-of-West-African-origin-The-case-against-constant-BMI-standards.pdf
The answer appears to be no, given that among all of those populations, it was still all over the damned place.
Relevant quote: "Second, although the search for a measure of obesity that is independent of height implies a belief that there is a strong relationship between weight and height, the strength of this relationship (as judged by the value of R2) is, in fact, quite weak."3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
If the claim is that BMI breaks down outside of normal height, that's documented.
But the statement that "if you eat more calories, you'll have a higher BMI" is a Null value statement comparable to "if you let go of a pencil it will hit the floor"
OTOH, "maintaining a similar weight on a higher number of calories" statement is BMR/TDEE not BMI.
that was why I was asking...up the thread - someone basically made the assertation that shorter people will on average have a higher BMI - so I was trying to see if there were any longitudinal studies that actually supported that or not...1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
If the claim is that BMI breaks down outside of normal height, that's documented.
But the statement that "if you eat more calories, you'll have a higher BMI" is a Null value statement comparable to "if you let go of a pencil it will hit the floor"
OTOH, "maintaining a similar weight on a higher number of calories" statement is BMR/TDEE not BMI.
that was why I was asking...up the thread - someone basically made the assertation that shorter people will on average have a higher BMI - so I was trying to see if there were any longitudinal studies that actually supported that or not...
Ultimately, it's just an application of the square cube law.1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
Oh, I interpreted it like Gallowmere did.
No one said shorter people are more likely to be overweight. The other poster suggested that if we wanted to see if shorter people were more likely to overeat (due to lower calories for maintenance on average), that you could look at BMIs and see if shorter people were more likely to have overweight or obese BMI, if their average BMI is higher. It was a suggested research project, not a claim that it was true.1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
If the claim is that BMI breaks down outside of normal height, that's documented.
But the statement that "if you eat more calories, you'll have a higher BMI" is a Null value statement comparable to "if you let go of a pencil it will hit the floor"
OTOH, "maintaining a similar weight on a higher number of calories" statement is BMR/TDEE not BMI.
that was why I was asking...up the thread - someone basically made the assertation that shorter people will on average have a higher BMI - so I was trying to see if there were any longitudinal studies that actually supported that or not...
Here's the post (I bolded the relevant bit):maryjaquiss wrote: »...However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
It's a suggested way to measure if low calories might equate to lower satiety even with a lower TDEE.
I don't think it would work (although it might be interesting), but the poster was being misunderstood.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
If the claim is that BMI breaks down outside of normal height, that's documented.
But the statement that "if you eat more calories, you'll have a higher BMI" is a Null value statement comparable to "if you let go of a pencil it will hit the floor"
OTOH, "maintaining a similar weight on a higher number of calories" statement is BMR/TDEE not BMI.
that was why I was asking...up the thread - someone basically made the assertation that shorter people will on average have a higher BMI - so I was trying to see if there were any longitudinal studies that actually supported that or not...
Here's the post (I bolded the relevant bit):maryjaquiss wrote: »...However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
It's a suggested way to measure if low calories might equate to lower satiety even with a lower TDEE.
I don't think it would work (although it might be interesting), but the poster was being misunderstood.
@stanmann571 asked her originally the same thing that I did - so we were both confused one where she was going with her thought process0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.
is there any science to actually support that?
Read The Hungry Brain by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. It's sourced out the butt with references, and goes into the neuroscience of overeating.
It's also one of the few areas where we are actually very similar to animal models, all the way down to lampreys, because a lot of our actions and inhibitions are controlled by the "selector switch" that is the striatum, within the basal ganglia. As he put it, evolution appears to have hit a rare homerun about 500 million years ago, because this part of the brain is freakishly similar across all vertabrates.
I was talking more that shorter people are more likely to be overweight per BMI? is that in The Hungry Brain?
If the claim is that BMI breaks down outside of normal height, that's documented.
But the statement that "if you eat more calories, you'll have a higher BMI" is a Null value statement comparable to "if you let go of a pencil it will hit the floor"
OTOH, "maintaining a similar weight on a higher number of calories" statement is BMR/TDEE not BMI.
that was why I was asking...up the thread - someone basically made the assertation that shorter people will on average have a higher BMI - so I was trying to see if there were any longitudinal studies that actually supported that or not...
Here's the post (I bolded the relevant bit):maryjaquiss wrote: »...However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
It's a suggested way to measure if low calories might equate to lower satiety even with a lower TDEE.
I don't think it would work (although it might be interesting), but the poster was being misunderstood.
@stanmann571 asked her originally the same thing that I did - so we were both confused one where she was going with her thought process
Yeah, I know. That's why I jumped in to try to explain, because I thought I understood where she was going.0 -
gatamadriz wrote: »Here's what I learned from my nutritionist and also my personal trainer when I lived in Europe:
Short men and women gain muscle more rapidly than taller people.
Wow, that is interesting. I do appear to gain muscle very quickly, is there science behind this? (I'm short.)
Also as far as my original post, I was basically just trying to propose the idea that short people who typically get TDEEs lower than tall people (or at least I thought, before someone posted otherwise) are not actually as hungry as tall people, hence why they need less calories. Or, are short people just as hungry as tall people so weight loss is harder for them than it is for their 6' peers? I got TDEE, BMR, BMI, and the other acronyms all confused. :P
0 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »gatamadriz wrote: »Here's what I learned from my nutritionist and also my personal trainer when I lived in Europe:
Short men and women gain muscle more rapidly than taller people.
Wow, that is interesting. I do appear to gain muscle very quickly, is there science behind this? (I'm short.)
Also as far as my original post, I was basically just trying to propose the idea that short people who typically get TDEEs lower than tall people (or at least I thought, before someone posted otherwise) are not actually as hungry as tall people, hence why they need less calories. Or, are short people just as hungry as tall people so weight loss is harder for them than it is for their 6' peers? I got TDEE, BMR, BMI, and the other acronyms all confused. :P
I would say that No- we aren't as hungry (for a similar activity level). The problem is that when out at a bar/party/restaurant/etc with others, we still often also want to have that yummy dessert or a tasty burger or that glass of wine, etc (and the calories aren't there for it).3 -
I'm tall, 5'11. My maintainance calories are right around 1800. Especially during the winter when I'm slothen and hibernating. I can maintain on more in summer when I'm more active.
0 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »gatamadriz wrote: »Here's what I learned from my nutritionist and also my personal trainer when I lived in Europe:
Short men and women gain muscle more rapidly than taller people.
Wow, that is interesting. I do appear to gain muscle very quickly, is there science behind this? (I'm short.)
Also as far as my original post, I was basically just trying to propose the idea that short people who typically get TDEEs lower than tall people (or at least I thought, before someone posted otherwise) are not actually as hungry as tall people, hence why they need less calories. Or, are short people just as hungry as tall people so weight loss is harder for them than it is for their 6' peers? I got TDEE, BMR, BMI, and the other acronyms all confused. :P
I would say that No- we aren't as hungry (for a similar activity level). The problem is that when out at a bar/party/restaurant/etc with others, we still often also want to have that yummy dessert or a tasty burger or that glass of wine, etc (and the calories aren't there for it).
This may be true for you, but not for me.4 -
Yeah, Us shorties are majorly forked. Want a glass of wine once a week? Well then you can't have breakfast that day. A slice of cake on your birthday? That means no lunch since that is about ithe total calories I would allot to an entire lunch.
So we are forked but are we hungrier than our tall friends? No telling, but I doubt it. Not hungrier but short folks are much less satisfied eating within their calorie goals than taller folk, is my take on it.3 -
Yeah, Us shorties are majorly forked. Want a glass of wine once a week? Well then you can't have breakfast that day. A slice of cake on your birthday? That means no lunch since that is about ithe total calories I would allot to an entire lunch.
So we are forked but are we hungrier than our tall friends? No telling, but I doubt it. Not hungrier but short folks are much less satisfied eating within their calorie goals than taller folk, is my take on it.
Strange... I'm short (5'2) and I have wine pretty much every day, and I don't forego breakfast. Had peach crisp with ice cream the other night and still managed to eat lunch as well and stay within calories...
I'm not hungrier or less satisfied with my calorie allotment. I have worked to increase my NEAT so that my TDEE is about 2200 calories, which gives me plenty of room for all the food I enjoy.9 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
THIS. YOU create your TDEE. You want to consume more, then you need to burn more.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That's weird because whenever anyone asks what kind of exercise burns calories, they're always told to exercise for fitness not for food.
Exercise for many's like the food mart version, of the housing market & we saw, how that went!0 -
I can make that 1 glass of wine work nightly unless the dance venue is follow-heavy and a slow style. (unfortunately, the studio tango venue tends to be where the wine flows more freely - since we can bring our own bottles- and usually has more sitting).0
-
I'm 5'3 and maintain at 2300 calories...also compete in powerlifting. My energy needs are pretty high.
I don't think "short people gain muscle easier," that sounds like major broscience. I do look more built than my husband who is 6'3, b/c my limbs are shorter. I guarantee that he still has more muscle...he outweighs me by 75lbs.
ETA: I'm hungry all of the time...8 -
CaloricCountess wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
THIS. YOU create your TDEE. You want to consume more, then you need to burn more.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That's weird because whenever anyone asks what kind of exercise burns calories, they're always told to exercise for fitness not for food.
Exercise for many's like the food mart version, of the housing market & we saw, how that went!
What? There's an exercise bubble?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CaloricCountess wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
THIS. YOU create your TDEE. You want to consume more, then you need to burn more.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That's weird because whenever anyone asks what kind of exercise burns calories, they're always told to exercise for fitness not for food.
Exercise for many's like the food mart version, of the housing market & we saw, how that went!
What? There's an exercise bubble?
Of course! Go to gym, earn 300 exercise calories (salary), then buy 500 calorie cupcake (home), with 100 earned exercise salary down payment, borrow 400 calorie loan via tomorrow's budget, overspend by 200 calories of the next days budget, be unable to repay 200 of those calories upon time, foreclose on weight riddance goals & gain debt (weight)!5 -
CaloricCountess wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CaloricCountess wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
THIS. YOU create your TDEE. You want to consume more, then you need to burn more.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That's weird because whenever anyone asks what kind of exercise burns calories, they're always told to exercise for fitness not for food.
Exercise for many's like the food mart version, of the housing market & we saw, how that went!
What? There's an exercise bubble?
Of course! Go to gym, earn 300 exercise calories (salary), then buy 500 calorie cupcake (home), with 100 earned exercise salary down payment, borrow 400 calorie loan via tomorrow's budget, overspend by 200 calories of the next days budget, be unable to repay 200 of those calories upon time, foreclose on weight riddance goals & gain debt (weight)!
Yes, some people over-estimate calorie burn from exercise.
Not really sure what that has to do with the fact that exercising or being active DOES give even short people a higher TDEE.
Also not seeing the connection with the housing bubble which had to do with lots of specific factors not worth getting into here that seem quite distinct from the TDEE situation, but I'm sure I'm being overly literal.1 -
He he. Alas, our small efficient bodies don't burn a whole lot exercising. (At ~74 calories/mile, the +700 calories to get to the 2200 TDEE mentioned above requires the equivalent of running 9.5 miles on a daily basis..I usually only manage that on the weekends).
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions