Short people get the shaft
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Strange. I'm on MFP because I needed to better my fitness and lose weight, not because I was a super athlete with an excellent TDEE like you!
Maybe you could help me (5'3 with overweight BMI) do meal planning to allow that glass of wine everyday, eat 3 meals every day and get all my nutrients, and lose weight on this because every time I do the math it doesn't add up
Note: The 400 to 600 so calories I exercise off on the 1.5 to 2.5 hours exercising on cardio days ( 3 to 4 days a week) give me a tiny amount of wiggle room but the strength days ( pretty much no extra calories burned) don't.
So yeah, I think short people get the shaft. There is no wiggle room for an occasional treat or logging mistake on so few calories.
Lol if I could eat 2200 a day (without gaining 50 pounds a year doing so) I wouldn't complain either, but I sure would have empathized with those who need to be eating less than 2/3 of that 2200 and understood and been nice about the fact that they have to forgo breakfast to fit in Calories to have a glass of wine that day.
9 -
I'm like @WinoGelato - I'm 5'3", 149 and maintain on 2700cal a day (relatively active, but even on weeks when I do little to nothing and eat the same I maintain)...
according to the calculator that @ryenday post - I should be gaining weight rapidly (since their 2lbs a week is less than what I consume on a daily basis) - yet I've been weight stable for at least 2 months and have increased my calories over 150 a day in that time2 -
Oh, there is another thought to stoke the flames (lol with actual numbers this time):
I have a BMI of 20.3 - 5'4, 118lb, female, 25
If I do moderate exercise (3-5x/week) I will have a TDEE of 1,961 calories to maintain.
If I am sedentary, I will have a TDEE of 1,518 calories to maintain.
Another woman has a BMI of 20.4 (I couldn't get the .3, lol, close enough) - 5'8, 134lb, female, 25
If she does moderate exercise (3-5/xweek) she will have a TDEE of 2,172 calories to maintain.
If she is sedentary, she will have a TDEE of 1,682 calories to maintain.
The taller woman gets ~200 calories more than me, doing the same thing. Not as significant as I originally thought - but on average then, wouldn't it be in line to say that the taller woman is actually hungrier than me? I know we're dealing with an abstract here and its hard to gauge how hungry someone actually is - but still interesting. :-)1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Strange. I'm on MFP because I needed to better my fitness and lose weight, not because I was a super athlete with an excellent TDEE like you!
Maybe you could help me (5'3 with overweight BMI) do meal planning to allow that glass of wine everyday, eat 3 meals every day and get all my nutrients, and lose weight on this because every time I do the math it doesn't add up
Note: The 400 to 600 so calories I exercise off on the 1.5 to 2.5 hours exercising on cardio days ( 3 to 4 days a week) give me a tiny amount of wiggle room but the strength days ( pretty much no extra calories burned) don't.
So yeah, I think short people get the shaft. There is no wiggle room for an occasional treat or logging mistake on so few calories.
Lol if I could eat 2200 a day (without gaining 50 pounds a year doing so) I wouldn't complain either, but I sure would have empathized with those who need to be eating less than 2/3 of that 2200 and understood and been nice about the fact that they have to forgo breakfast to fit in Calories to have a glass of wine that day.
I'm hardly a super athlete. My exercise is walking, some through purposeful exercise but much of it through daily activity, and circuit training with light weights a few times/week. When I started MFP though, I was truly sedentary. I walked maybe once or twice a week for about 30 minutes, and I stayed at my desk all day long, and when I wasn't doing a chore or something, I was sitting on the couch. I've prioritized being more active, every single day, and worked my way up from averaging about 7K steps/day when I first got my FitBit to double that now. I still have a desk job, but I get up and move as often as I'm able to - taking short 10 minute walks in between meetings, walking at lunch time after eating quickly at my desk (rather than going to the cafeteria and just sitting with colleagues like I used to). When I first started I was set at 1200 like so many others, and then I raised it to 1400 (NET) because I couldn't manage on 1200. I worked to raise my TDEE, by raising my NEAT, by continuing to slowly increase my daily activity level (and my purposeful exercise). It's a pet peeve of mine on these boards how anyone who is petite assumes they have to go to the bare minimum of calories in order to lose weight, or how they lament that being short means they are disadvantaged on the calorie front. You can't do anything about being short, but there are things that people can do about the number of calories they have to work with, and it doesn't mean killing yourself in the gym. There are also a lot of examples of people who have done long term damage to their metabolism (adaptive thermogenesis) by continually restricting calories too low, engaging in yo yo dieting, etc. People don't understand that your NEAT is something you can influence, maybe not in dramatic fashion, but it's not something you are just dealt and have no control over.
Sorry if my comments came across as disrespectful but I still think that there's something off if you can't squeeze in a 125 calorie glass of wine without forgoing breakfast, as often as you wish to indulge in it.16 -
After reading the title, I came here hoping for pictures : (1
-
Am I the only one finding amusement in the fact that the OP and others are essentially whining about having a biological survival advantage?
Oh, how the modern food environment has destroyed perspective.9 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Am I the only one finding amusement in the fact that the OP and others are essentially whining about having a biological survival advantage?
Oh, how the modern food environment has destroyed perspective.
Failing to see how I did anything of the sort. I was suggesting that we're all equally hungry. The "jerks!" comment was, IMO, blatant jest.
However, I'm going to go triumph around that in this coming hurricane I only need to stockpile 600 cans of soup as opposed to my tall neighbor's 800. :-)7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Strange. I'm on MFP because I needed to better my fitness and lose weight, not because I was a super athlete with an excellent TDEE like you!
Maybe you could help me (5'3 with overweight BMI) do meal planning to allow that glass of wine everyday, eat 3 meals every day and get all my nutrients, and lose weight on this because every time I do the math it doesn't add up
Note: The 400 to 600 so calories I exercise off on the 1.5 to 2.5 hours exercising on cardio days ( 3 to 4 days a week) give me a tiny amount of wiggle room but the strength days ( pretty much no extra calories burned) don't.
So yeah, I think short people get the shaft. There is no wiggle room for an occasional treat or logging mistake on so few calories.
Lol if I could eat 2200 a day (without gaining 50 pounds a year doing so) I wouldn't complain either, but I sure would have empathized with those who need to be eating less than 2/3 of that 2200 and understood and been nice about the fact that they have to forgo breakfast to fit in Calories to have a glass of wine that day.
I'm hardly a super athlete. My exercise is walking, some through purposeful exercise but much of it through daily activity, and circuit training with light weights a few times/week. When I started MFP though, I was truly sedentary. I walked maybe once or twice a week for about 30 minutes, and I stayed at my desk all day long, and when I wasn't doing a chore or something, I was sitting on the couch. I've prioritized being more active, every single day, and worked my way up from averaging about 7K steps/day when I first got my FitBit to double that now. I still have a desk job, but I get up and move as often as I'm able to - taking short 10 minute walks in between meetings, walking at lunch time after eating quickly at my desk (rather than going to the cafeteria and just sitting with colleagues like I used to). When I first started I was set at 1200 like so many others, and then I raised it to 1400 (NET) because I couldn't manage on 1200. I worked to raise my TDEE, by raising my NEAT, by continuing to slowly increase my daily activity level (and my purposeful exercise). It's a pet peeve of mine on these boards how anyone who is petite assumes they have to go to the bare minimum of calories in order to lose weight, or how they lament that being short means they are disadvantaged on the calorie front. You can't do anything about being short, but there are things that people can do about the number of calories they have to work with, and it doesn't mean killing yourself in the gym. There are also a lot of examples of people who have done long term damage to their metabolism (adaptive thermogenesis) by continually restricting calories too low, engaging in yo yo dieting, etc. People don't understand that your NEAT is something you can influence, maybe not in dramatic fashion, but it's not something you are just dealt and have no control over.
Sorry if my comments came across as disrespectful but I still think that there's something off if you can't squeeze in a 125 calorie glass of wine without forgoing breakfast, as often as you wish to indulge in it.
Thanks for the apology, it is a pet peeve of mine that people keep telling me I'm doing something wrong when I AM NOT! Itry to explain, I'm short and I don't have 125 calories to play with weekly, let alone daily. I do log faithfully and accurately. I do 5 -10 hours of cardio a week. I do bodyweight exercising 2 or 3 times a week. My blood tests on my yearly physical just came back last week: thyroid and everything else is normal. My BMI is 29.93 if my scale is to be trusted. I eat between 1100 and 1400 calories a day and that has resulted in ( over 6 months) .27 - .34 pounds loss a week ( depending on whether you look at the recent trend or the overall trend including the initial water weight loss). Wow, a whole 1/4 pound a week! That calculator ( assuming normal tracking error (+- 20% error nutrition information labels are allowed) and the occasional husband birthday and my anniversary dinner in those 6 months) is dead right for me.
No, nothing is wrong, if I'm going to be on track to lose that 1/4 pound I fight for each week I can not have my breakfast and wine on the same day. I'm losing, so obviously I'm doing it right.
YOU retrained your TDEE, good for you. Mine isn't responding like yours diid. So, yes, your comment totally did come across as fat shaming. And, no it seems there is nothing wrong with me The calculators I've checked all agree more or less with my body: 1200 calories will make me lose weight. Only about 1/4 pound a week, but steadily enough it shows it works. No I didn't ruin my metabolism on fad diets. I really only purposely dieted twice in my life (each time sensibly and for about 6 months, each time losing about 20 to 25 pounds), and kept the weight loss off each time for over 5 years.
On 1200 calories, no I don't have a spare over 10% my total daily calories to just indulge. You have 2200 calories daily. You can indulge. You are short but were able to retrain your TDEE. Glad for you. (Seriously, I am glad you were able to.) But maybe you could show a tad bit of support for those of us who are short, doing everything right, but are not as successful as you (genetic luck, I suppose) at that retraining so we do have to try to feed ourselves on 1200 a day.10 -
She didn't retrain her TDEE, she increased her Total Daily Energy Expenditure by becoming more incidentally active day to day.
It is pretty baffling that 5-10 hours of cardio and strength training still leaves you with 1200 gross to work with for such a small deficit but there we go.
It's also baffling that this be the case when you have previously lost significantly more in 6 month time frames. Were you eating dangerously low in order to achieve that?
Also, the calculator you showed isn't TDEE if you're selecting sedentary and then talking about adding in exercise. My sedentary/NEAT calories to lose 1lb per week are 1260 calories. Do I eat that few? Hell no! I exercise because ain't nobody got time for that. If I got off my butt and walked more I could easily get another 200 calories a day just from 10'000 steps. So add in the exercise and that's potentially 1700 to lose 1lb per week. No athlete levels of activity there. And room for wine.
And someone of 5'3 isn't especially short to me at 5'5. 5' sure.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »She didn't retrain her TDEE, she increased her Total Daily Energy Requirements by becoming more incidentally active day to day.
It is pretty baffling that 5-10 hours of cardio and strength training still leaves you with 1200 gross to work with for such a small deficit but there we go.
It's also baffling that this be the case when you have previously lost significantly more in 6 month time frames. Were you eating dangerously low in order to achieve that?
Don't see why that is baffling. The calculators all seem to say less than 1200 a day to have 1 pd weight loss a week ON AVERAGE for someone my height who is sedentary apart from purposeful exercise. And tho these calculators always ask my age, I'm pretty sure they don't use it to get those numbers and I'm older.
On the 3 or 4 cardio days a week I eat more like 1400 (post workout snack) On the non cardio days it between 1100 and 1200. Cardio is at least 1 hour swimming and usually a aqua fit class. Maybe a short bike ride to and from gym. The calculators give an average, I guess I'm just at the 'kitten' end of the bell curve. I doubt I'm actually unusual, I see plenty of posts here - but the reception is usually so poor that I'm guessing others like me usually just keep our mouths shut.
I do lose on the 1200. I just seem to lose maybe 1/2 what the calculators predict. But, given such a small calorie base, one screw up on a nutrition label the allowed +-20% (that 350 cal frozen dinner is actually 420 for instance) and a piece of roast beef that was a tad more fatty than the USDA entry and bye bye deficit for the day. I also just checked and took 5 days off the diet in the 6 months. One restaurant meal can with desert and a glass of wine ( like we had on our anniversary) can eliminate more than a week deficit! when the calorie pool is so small. So given the vagaries of life I'm probably not far from what the calculators predict.
As to the other two diets, no I did pretty much the same as now 1200 to 1400 calories, but I was younger and had a walk, stand on train, walk again commute: thus 2 hours or more daily of activity without any purposeful exercise. I don't live in a city with public transportation anymore and I'm a couple of decades older. Things change.
I'm not complaining that I can't lose weight. I DO lose weight on 1200 calories. Painfully slowly, but steady.
But, no, I do not have 10% or more of my daily allotment of calories to treat myself with wine or cake or potato chips unless I resign myself to blowing the calorie limit that day or doing without a breakfast or lunch to compensate. It is what it is, it sucks but I'm just not going to be ashamed of it here on MFP because it is true.
I'm working to be healthy and fit and a normal weight and it sucks that I can't eat 2200 calories a day, but that is the way it is. All the theory or healthy and fit (and probably younger) people can scoff all they want. I know and live the reality.
And quite frankly someone who is eating actual maintenance calories which are almost more than double the weight loss calories I have telling me it is strange and that I should be able to have wine without forgoing breakfast is not helpful or supportive, imho. There is a world of difference between 2200 calories and 1200 calories and I'm not going to pretend there isn't.
(The dieting has taken its toll, btw. 1200 was too little for me to continue without huge mental health ramifications so I have switched to maintenance this month and probably a few more months. Will continue cardio and strength while I take this break. Loss of only 1/4 pound a week is a serious bummer and I needed a break.)
But back to topic: Short people have a smaller calorie base to work with so therefore any treat ( like a glass of wine) is a larger percentage of their calories and harder to fit in. That sucks and leaves ME ( a shortie) far less satisfied (appetite and taste wise) than my taller friends. But are short people more or less hungry? Doubtful imo.5 -
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. No surer path to misery than comparison.9
-
singingflutelady wrote: »StarvingAuthor wrote: »OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!
Actually no. You are 5'4 and bmr 1200s (I did the calculation and it's 1272)
and I'm 5'8 bmr 1316. I wouldn't say yours is much less than mine.
5'4" is short? I always thought I was on the tall side for a girl. Probably just my 6th grade self remembering being taller than all the boys in the class.
2 -
Food choices can always be made where you can cut something out for wine. However, you have to weigh if you are going to be nutritionally satisfied enough with the cut to make the wine worth it. Depending on the variety, wine is apparently 110-330 calories, so let's go with 220 just to keep it in the middle.
Breakfast
Coffee w/ sugar & creamer - 85 calories
1 cup oatmeal - 300 calories
1/2 cup milk - 75 calories
Lunch
4 eggs - 280 calories
1 ounce cheese - 110 calories
(390 calories)
Dinner (btw I'm starving by now)
Salad Mix (40 calories)
1 Tbsp Salad Dressing (120 calories)
4 ounces pasta (400 calories)
1 cup sauce (100 calories)
(660 calories)
--whoops, that's 1,510 calories. What if...
Coffee w/ sugar and creamer - 85 calories
4 eggs - 280 calories
Salad Mix - 40 calories
Salad dressing - 120 calories
2 pieces toast - 120 calories
1 cup dry rice, cooked - 640 calories
1 cup vegetables - 80 calories
Soy sauce - ~10 calories
So thats 1,375 but the wine would put us over. It's rough to do low calories and make room for wine.
4 -
Lol, nice attempt!! Now try it on 1200 while meeting the recommended 1g protein for ever lb of ideal weight ( or even the .6g protein per lb current weight). If it can be done, the person doing it has to be better at math than I am!StarvingAuthor wrote: »So thats 1,375 but the wine would put us over. It's rough to do low calories and make room for wine.
Good news for me tho! I take my coffee black! +854 -
Lol, nice attempt!! Now try it on 1200 while meeting the recommended 1g protein for ever lb of ideal weight ( or even the .6g protein per lb current weight). If it can be done, the person doing it has to be better at math than I am!StarvingAuthor wrote: »So thats 1,375 but the wine would put us over. It's rough to do low calories and make room for wine.
Good news for me tho! I take my coffee black! +85
...ugh. Okay, here is my attempt, tailored for your (ew) black coffee and 1g protein. :P I'm going to say you're aiming for 120lbs? IDK your height/weight; I assume a bit shorter than myself.
Breakfast
Black Gross Coffee - 0
3 scrambled eggs - 210 (18g protein)
1 oz mozzarella cheese - 80 (8g protein)
(290 calories, 26g protein)
Lunch
Salad Mix - 40
1 tbsp Salad Dressing - 120
140g chicken breast - 231 calories (43g protein)
(391 calories, 43g protein)
Dinner
231g Cod Filet - 190 calories (41g protein)
1 oz mozzarella cheese - 80 calories (8g protein)
1 cup vegetable mix - 80 calories
(350 calories, 49g protein)
Snack
7 carrot stick (35 calories)
1 celery stalk (6 calories)
(41 calories)
This day gives you 118gprotein and 1,072 calories, so you can treat yourself to a wholesome 128 calorie snack, you lucky girl. Maybe 1/2 a cup of wine?2 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »
This day gives you 118gprotein and 1,072 calories, so you can treat yourself to a wholesome 128 calorie snack, you lucky girl. Maybe 1/2 a cup of wine?
Wow, you totally rock!!! Saving the menu for when I go back to diet from current maintenance break! That is about what I am aiming for Protein-wise so you win the Internet!
Seriously tho, I totally am sick of eating like that. I happen to be allergic to eggs so I eat much like your plan but with less breakfast and with protein powder drink (made with leftover cold black gross coffee - lol). On maintenance I am so enjoying my fruit and potatoes here and there! I have even THOUGHT about that glass of wine, though one week into maintenance eating and I haven't yet indulged. But knowing that I can do so guilt free has been almost better than actually indulging
2 -
Switch out the mozzarella for low fat cottage cheese. Tinned tuna as an alternative to chicken. Giant bowl of salad if you're a volume person. Switch salad dressing for balsamic or a lower calorie version. More savings.3
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Switch out the mozzarella for low fat cottage cheese. Tinned tuna as an alternative to chicken. Giant bowl of salad if you're a volume person. Switch salad dressing for balsamic or a lower calorie version. More savings.
This is a likely substitute, especially because she can't eat eggs. So, to make up for the egg protein:
1 cup low fat 1% cottage cheese - 160 calories (28g protein)
1 medium peach (that is sliced into the cottage cheese and sprinkled with cinnamon to be delicious) - 60 calories
220 calories, 28g protein - better than the breakfast I posted in both protein and calories.
The tuna can is 100 calories and 20g protein, so she'd have to do 2 cans, so 200 calories, 40g protein - also better than my posted chicken.
Fish is just great.
Good luck, ryen! The only way its really doable is with fish, IMO.1 -
Lol, nice attempt!! Now try it on 1200 while meeting the recommended 1g protein for ever lb of ideal weight ( or even the .6g protein per lb current weight). If it can be done, the person doing it has to be better at math than I am!StarvingAuthor wrote: »So thats 1,375 but the wine would put us over. It's rough to do low calories and make room for wine.
Good news for me tho! I take my coffee black! +85
bwahaha. Lowfat cottage cheese for the protein if you like it (fortunately I love it)(lowfat greek yogurt too, but I don't enjoy yogurt much without somewhat carb-y mix-ins)!...Unfortunately, It can also be a bit hard to meet minimum recommended fat as well below a certain number of calories (due to cutting out high calorie density foods).
I typically wouldn't try to make it work on 1200 total calories, but I usually only really want to drink wine when I'm at a dancing venue - so 1 glass (~120 cal for 5 oz) will usually take care of itself unless we have a shortage of leads.
0 -
All I can tell you is that things didn't change for me until I quit with excessive cardio and started lifting heavy.
A few years ago, I was doing 5-10 hours a week of cardio, not lifting, maintaining around 1600 calories.
Fast forward to now, I lift heavy 4-5 days a week (1-1.5hrs lifting + 15-20 minutes of cardio after)...I'm the exact same weight...2 sizes smaller and maintain on 2300 calories.
Maybe you are looking at this from the wrong angle...4 -
First off, thanks for the ideas folks!! And, to all: cinnamon makes Everything better! ( well cinnamon OR garlic. Everything is better with one or the other)deputy_randolph wrote: »All I can tell you is that things didn't change for me until I quit with excessive cardio and started lifting heavy.
A few years ago, I was doing 5-10 hours a week of cardio, not lifting, maintaining around 1600 calories.
Fast forward to now, I lift heavy 4-5 days a week (1-1.5hrs lifting + 15-20 minutes of cardio after)...I'm the exact same weight...2 sizes smaller and maintain on 2300 calories.
Maybe you are looking at this from the wrong angle...
I'm doing strength work ( bodyweight YAYOG program) for the reason so many people say exactly that AND b/c I certainly want to NOT lose muscle. I wish I could say I like it, but I hate it unfortunately. Will continue to do it but I'm doubtful I'll ever like it.
As for excessive cardio, the aqua fit instructor is currently starting us on Pilates ("pool-ates") and I'm definitely keeping the classes for now because I sure can feel how badly my core muscles needed it. Swimming tho, not doing it for cardio as much as for love and relaxation- no plans to give that up until I'm on my death bed (many decades from now, I hope.). I often cant get a ride to the gym, so I have to walk there or bike there... nope, don't see where to cut the cardio right now. 5-10 hours cant seriously be thought of as excessive tho, can it?0 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Switch out the mozzarella for low fat cottage cheese. Tinned tuna as an alternative to chicken. Giant bowl of salad if you're a volume person. Switch salad dressing for balsamic or a lower calorie version. More savings.
This is a likely substitute, especially because she can't eat eggs. So, to make up for the egg protein:
1 cup low fat 1% cottage cheese - 160 calories (28g protein)
1 medium peach (that is sliced into the cottage cheese and sprinkled with cinnamon to be delicious) - 60 calories
220 calories, 28g protein - better than the breakfast I posted in both protein and calories.
The tuna can is 100 calories and 20g protein, so she'd have to do 2 cans, so 200 calories, 40g protein - also better than my posted chicken.
Fish is just great.
Good luck, ryen! The only way its really doable is with fish, IMO.
It's actually easier to do with chicken, assuming that one utilizes breast tenderloin cuts, which is just breast meat with no rib meat attached, all visible fat removed, and rendered PUFAs poured away. It's usually a bit more pricey than just standard breasts, but it's amazing when one is working with poverty macros. I use it all of the time when running my rapid cuts.3 -
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).
I'm not that short but only burn about 50 cal/mile. I always envy those who burn 800+ calories running 8 miles compared to my measly 400.1 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »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).
I'm not that short but only burn about 50 cal/mile. I always envy those who burn 800+ calories running 8 miles compared to my measly 400.
Wear a vest or a ruck.5 -
I'm male, so often I find that people want to assume that I should be eating 3K-4K for maintenance. I'm 5'7", so I'm short, but not terribly short. I've had my RMR measured in a lab at 1,500 and I have a tremendous appetite. I'll admit my appetite is not nearly what it was when I was heavier (there was a time when I could easily put down 25K-30K in a day); but I still find calorie restriction challenging even on days when I'm very active. Also, my long runs of several hours still don't give me enough calories to satisfy my appetite. That is even when sticking to very low carb (which I find to be more filling as well).3
-
Short people can have a higher TDEE - they just have to move more.
I'm short (5ft 2 / 48yrs), my TDEE averages 2000. I'm active. If I weren't, I could maintain on 1500. I don't feel I've gotten the shaft as it definately takes much less to fill me than it does my 6ft 2 hubby.
I do have to think of food as fuel and eat for satiety/energy but each day I will have a choccie biscuit/bar so always leave enough calories for those.1 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »It seems like short people are always complaining that we get the 'short' end of the stick with low calorie requirements (my BMR is like...1200 or something). Tall people on the other hand are blessed with TDEEs of 2,000+! Jerks!
But! I wonder:
Do short people actually get less hungry than tall people? Do tall people feel like their 2000+ calories are insufficient unless properly nutritionally mapped out? Are short people not really considering that tall people are hungrier than us and at the end of the day it all balances out and puts us in the same boat?
HMMM......
ETA: OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!
I have wondered this for FOREVER. Like I still get pretty hungry when training, but when on hiatus I usually get by and am *full* with only 1,000-1,200 calories x day. Just wish I could stuff my face with 2,000+ calories of food x day! I would go H.A.M.!1 -
I'm 5'1'', 178 lbs (I'm sure I get some extra cals just because I'm heavier) but I've averaging 2300 right now and my weight is trending down. I'm guessing maintenance is 2500+
Can't say I've ever felt personally victimized because of my height lol. I also lift heavy several days per week.
ETA- Oh, and I'm hypothyroid.
*Shrug emoji*3 -
I think there really may be some (genetic?) blind-luck component to individual calorie requirements - some still-missing puzzle piece.
The NEAT/TDEE calculators are close for many, but materially off for a few, not always for an obvious reason. Everyone can work on improving their NEAT and EAT, but some appear to have more success than others, with perhaps some tendency of the more-successful to believe the less-successful aren't trying as hard. Anecdotally, some people's NEAT seems to up-regulate or down-regulate more automatically to CI changes than others' NEAT. Weight training per se anecdotally seems to have a differing magnitude of effect on TDEE for some vs. others.
Can I prove any of this? No. But I've heard things like this - with convincing details - often enough to think there might be something there. What? No idea. But I'm sure there are very, very interesting things science has yet to discover, and - who knows - some may fall in this space.
My NEAT is way higher than it 'should' be, at 61, 5'5", 120s, sedentary outside of intentional exercise - like 25%-30% higher. Why? No frickin' idea (if I knew, I'd write a diet book, not tell you guys
). Does this make compliance with CI=CO or CI < CO easier for me? No question. 7 -
I'm confused by some of the previous posts because I'm 5'2 and a half (I round up to 5'3) sw 141.1 cw is 133.7, goal is 120 and previous pre-husband, pre-kid weight was 115-120.
MFP gives me 1200 calories to lose 1.5 a week at sedentary , and Fitbit says as long as I maintain a -750 calorie deficit I should be on track for that. I try to get my TDEE up to 2200 and eat between 1250-1400 calories. Granted getting my TDEE up to that point is more difficult as a few pounds leave and I may have to be satisfied with 2000 bit it gives me room for what I want. Even if I do have to make time to work for it1
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
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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