Short people get the shaft
Options
Replies
-
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
Perhaps it contributes, but most of us also spend A LOT of time in the gym/training weekly, which I'm sure is a much larger contributor to TDEE than a few pound of extra lean mass.1 -
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
The added RMR from increased LBM has been chronically inflated for some time. The real number has been found to be something closer to 6-7 kcals per pound, which is a stark contrast to the old 60-65 that used to get thrown around.
Does it make a difference? Sure. Is it a large amount for anyone who isn't a Mr. Olympia contender? Nope.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
The added RMR from increased LBM has been chronically inflated for some time. The real number has been found to be something closer to 6-7 kcals per pound, which is a stark contrast to the old 60-65 that used to get thrown around.
Does it make a difference? Sure. Is it a large amount for anyone who isn't a Mr. Olympia contender? Nope.
Exactly!
And Lol @ whoever is wooing us for saying that training burns a lot of cals?!
Loool
I train 2+ hours, 5-6 days a week. Of course I need a lot of food.2 -
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
I don't do heavy lifting. I have strength trained, but with light to medium weights and have taken very long breaks because I go through spells where I don't particularly like weight lifting or feel too lazy to drag out my equipment.
I've done spells of just body weight training too.
I was completely sedentary (except for walking a lot and riding my bike a lot when I was a teen) until I was 52 years old. I don't know that I have appreciable muscle mass.
My high TDEE comes, as WinoGelato said, from getting myself from being a very sedentary person to being a person who's really not happy sitting around for long stretches of time. I'm very fidgety and active now, and believe me, that is something I worked to make happen.
I used to truly be a couch potato.3 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.6 -
I don't think you understand what NEAT is. It's non-exercise activity thermogensis.
That 6000 steps could go higher with increased NEAT.
Those of us who have higher TDEEs have worked to increase things like our step counts throughout the day by doing little things like using the break room on the far side of the building, parking the car far away, bringing in groceries one bag at a time, shopping grocery aisles inefficiently, putting laundry away one item at a time.
I turn my 13,000 morning run/walk steps into 24000 steps most days by doing things like that and walking around while things are cooking on the stove, and while tea is steeping or coffee is brewing or while I'm on the phone.
Editing to add that I used to be on 1200 calories when I first started on here. I was walking maybe 3-5 hours a week and 1200 calories plus exercise calories was all I could afford to eat. I wanted to become more fit and worked hard at it.
I understand all about budgeting. I used to bank calories for treats by eating 1100 some days and saving for 5 days to have 500 calories to splurge on something.
I didn't complain or say that it wasn't fair that I was short. I worked with what I had.
You can either work with what you have or work to have more. You're not doing yourself favors having an attitude that it just sucks that you can't budget this or that. You can. You just chose not to. Take ownership of that choice, because that positive spin on how you're doing things will have a major impact on the longevity of your endeavor.
6 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.
The person with less money could get a second job and have more to spend overall. In weight management terms this would be exercising (moving more), so you have more calories to play with your caloric intake.3 -
I'm not seeing anywhere where (recently, anyhow) where someone said "you're just lazy" or doing anything wrong.
People are different. Some may naturally have a higher TDEE.
I posted my stats because saying "Short people can't eat 2000 cals/can't eat as much as teller people/whatever" is obviously not true for everyone.0 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.
So I just took some guesses at 150lbs and 40 years old at 5'3 (which I don't consider short). I went with moderate option (4-6 hours moderate exercise). TDEE is 2200. So 1200 is a 1000 per day calorie deficit. Even assuming that's over by a couple hundred calories which i unlikely given how active you say you are, that's still 1500 calories per day to lose 1lb per week.
That's not dissimilar to what my numbers are at 5'5.
You are active. All anyone is saying is there are ways to be more active if you choose. I'm sedentary, I know I could perfectly easily increase my NEAT and not rely on exercise exclusively for my extra calories but I'm fine with what I do, if and when I want to be able to eat more then I will find ways to move more incidentally. It's on me and I'm not a good or bad person for doing or not doing it and neither is anyone judging me because they point that out. it's just the truth.
So I don't know where you're getting your numbers from because they're not nearly as woe as me as you seem to think they are.2 -
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'd say yes, it's all relative. I'm a 5'10" male I maintain on about 2800 calories per day (more when I'm training)...when I diet, yes...2300ish calories is a struggle...yes, I'm hungry, though I'm not ravenously so because when I diet I make sure I'm eating things that are going to help keep me full longer where as in maintenance I can have some of those not so filling but more calorie dense treats...but yeah, what sounds like a lot of calories to a female or shorter person is very much a restriction for me...
My wife is 5'2"/5'3" and she definitely gets full before I do. She's quite active so she maintains on 2200-2300 calories per day...and yes, she feel it when she cuts, but she cuts weight easily on about 1700-1800 calories per day...she definitely feels it, not the way she would if she were sedentary and had to eat 1200 or something4 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.
The person with less money could get a second job and have more to spend overall. In weight management terms this would be exercising (moving more), so you have more calories to play with your caloric intake.
Wow, the lengths people will go so they don't have to show any compassion for the less fortunate. "No, you are not less fortunate, and even noting a disparity in fortune is a complaint..."
Yeah, here are some unpopular opinions(I know, wrong thread):
Short people get a raw deal calorie wise.
Math tells the story.
And there are an awful lot of MFP'ers who like to engage in this gerneration's version of fat shaming - activity shaming.
There are also a whole bunch of MFP'ers who could learn the definitions of compassion and support, and could then show some to people on a weight loss platform who are working their butts off doing their best to lose some weight - and probably post on the site to get some support.
Ah well, it is the debate forum and I just found a ton of folks to add to my ignore list. I'm Done.6 -
Wiggymommy wrote: »It is HUGE factor. People who have maintenance cals around oh say above 2000k for example, could safely cut 500 calories. Someone five foot who is at maintenance around 1500-1600 cuts 500 and that's below 1200 and supposedly unsafe for any woman (no matter how tall). So we have to 1) I either work out more than taller people to cut the same amount of calories which is pointless because everyone says you still have to eat them back to stay at 1200 or 2) Just accept we can't lose it as quickly because we can't cut as many calories. Someone even with higher maintenance could cut even more aggressively reducing them to that 1200 marker (that still sticks no matter how tall someone is) and lead to even faster weight loss. No matter what we are held to that 1200 minimum and when your maintenance is so close to that already, weight loss takes much much longer.
The difference between a 30 year old female of 5'0" vs 5'8" weighing 130 Lbs is 1,626 vs 1,670 calories for maintenance at sedentary...not a particularly crazy difference.
The bigger difference is activity level. A female with maintenance calories in excess of 2,000 calories isn't because she is tall...it is because she's more active.7 -
Compassion - your grocery bill is less.
Wait, that's not compassion... Nvm
I'm sorry you can't drink wine every night?
There
2 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.
@ryenday If you're doing all of that exercise, then you'd be able to eat those calories back to up your daily calories, right? If you're only eating 1200 calories then i assume you are not accounting for your exercise burns??2 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.
The person with less money could get a second job and have more to spend overall. In weight management terms this would be exercising (moving more), so you have more calories to play with your caloric intake.
Wow, the lengths people will go so they don't have to show any compassion for the less fortunate. "No, you are not less fortunate, and even noting a disparity in fortune is a complaint..."
Yeah, here are some unpopular opinions(I know, wrong thread):
Short people get a raw deal calorie wise.
Math tells the story.
And there are an awful lot of MFP'ers who like to engage in this gerneration's version of fat shaming - activity shaming.
There are also a whole bunch of MFP'ers who could learn the definitions of compassion and support, and could then show some to people on a weight loss platform who are working their butts off doing their best to lose some weight - and probably post on the site to get some support.
Ah well, it is the debate forum and I just found a ton of folks to add to my ignore list. I'm Done.
I'm shorter than you and older than you and weigh less than you so therefor have a lower BMR than you.
I also have thyroid disease which might even lower my BMR to some extent.
I neither need nor want compassion for having a low BMR, because my calorie allowance is under my control.
I realized that after reading the forum posts from people like @WinoGelato who raised their calorie allowance over the time they lost weight and reading how they did it.
You have the choice to sit there and wallow, or you can do something about it. Your situation isn't fixed in stone.
I eat a very satisfying amount of calories to lose weight and don't feel one bit of remorse over having to take extra steps to do it.
Someone has it worse than I do in this life, if I sat there having a pity party for everything wrong with me, I'd still weigh 210 pounds.
You don't need compassion. You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself and to just get over this and look at the numbers and ask yourself what you're willing to do about things.
There are plenty of us whose numbers are worse than yours who are faring better, just saying.11 -
I guess what it comes down to is whether telling someone that they can increase their calorie allowance through increased activity is encouraging/helpful, or rude/unfeeling. (Is 'uncompassionate' a word?)3
-
As a generality, it has seemed to me that people who report an unusually low calorie requirement for their size/age/activity are likely to be received here with more skepticism than are people (like me) who report an inexplicably high one. This puzzles me.
I do know that's not precisely the full nature of this particular thread.
On a completely different line of thought: I'm no biologist/physiologist. Does anyone with more useful academic background know whether a pattern of anger or other negative emotions (or even general orientation to life and the world of that nature) would be likely to meaningfully elevate cortisol?6 -
As a generality, it has seemed to me that people who report an unusually low calorie requirement for their size/age/activity are likely to be received here with more skepticism than are people (like me) who report an inexplicably high one. This puzzles me.
I do know that's not precisely the full nature of this particular thread.
On a completely different line of thought: I'm no biologist/physiologist. Does anyone with more useful academic background know whether a pattern of anger or other negative emotions (or even general orientation to life and the world of that nature) would be likely to meaningfully elevate cortisol?
My comments on this topic, not specifically to this particular thread but to a pattern I've observed regularly over the past few years posting - are not usually motivated by skepticism or indifference/lack of empathy for what others are experiencing (which is what seems to be suggested in this thread). Rather, it seems there is a pervasive belief amongst many (primarily women although not exclusively), that dieting and losing weight must be a miserable experience in order to be successful. They feel it must be a requirement to cut out everything enjoyable in order to achieve their goals, to stay within their calorie target, etc. There are often a few posters who say things like "I'm short so I have to go to 1200 (or below) in order to lose" which often fuels that mindset that going for broke and choosing the most aggressive deficit is the way to go. So often, posters like these are the ones who find the entire process unsustainable, because no one wants to give up everything they enjoy just to achieve a weight loss goal.
I usually chime into these sort of threads to help counteract that prevailing mindset that anyone who is short must have a low calorie target, and anyone who desires to lose weight must give up everything they enjoy or they won't achieve their goals. I've already been branded an unsympathetic braggart in this thread, so I might as well go for broke and admit that I didn't find the process of losing weight to be miserable, or frustrating, at all. I never once felt deprived. I still drank wine regularly while losing and had pizza a couple of times a month. I enjoyed the process, of figuring out the mathematical equation of CICO, of realizing that I was in control of not only the CI part of it, but to some extent, the CO part as well. I too, originally started out at 1200 calories, and quickly realized that wasn't going to work for me if I wanted to stick with it and lose the weight I set out to lose. I read great advice on these boards that not everyone needs to cut to the bare minimum in order to be successful. I learned from veteran posters about eat more to weigh less, which helps promote a modest deficit and an active lifestyle in order to keep building on healthy habits and keep momentum going during the entire process. So I raised my calorie goal a little, I raised my activity level a lot over time, and as a result, I figured out that I am able to lose weight eating what some people consider to be their maintenance calories. I'm not saying all of this to be unsympathetic or skeptical to those who either cannot or do not make the same choices and have the same results that I've had.
I'm saying it to those who never even considered that they might be able to eat more than 1200, or 1500, or even 1800 calories and still lose weight. Who just assumed it had to be hard, miserable, and painful to be successful. It's really just meant to let some people know, who are interested in testing the math - that you may have some influence over this. It isn't always just a hand you've been dealt.15 -
@WinoGelato Can I just say you were one of the people that helped me realise that I didn't have to starve myself and be miserable throughout my weight loss.
I started at 290lb, and have lost 141lb without needing to starve myself at 1200 Calories. When i started MFP gave me around 2000 Calories without exercise to lose 1lb/week. While my base number of calories has dropped as i lost the weight my activity level has gone up exponentially which means my calories to lose weight have remained above 2000.
I've been attempting maintenance the last few weeks and before any exercise is taken in to account with my activity level set as active (not very active although I am) my base Calories are 1750. Remember I'm 5'2", 148lb (should really lose 10lb more to get in normal bmi) but this means even without taking everything other than the walking I do in to account I "could" eat 1500 to lose the healthy 0.5lb/week.
As it happens I burn way more than that, if you don't believe me fine but the numbers speak for themselves. Today is one of two seriously active days a week and I'll be starting with the school run, I don't have a car so I walk that mile. Then I'll run the mile to the gym, stick my bag in a locker and meet my PT outside for what she's promised me is going to be a "fun" session where I'll end up hating her. As soon as PT is finished we'll go in the gym where she holds a zumba class. Once zumba is finished I'll do my barbell squats before walking home.
After lunch I'll do the housework then back to school to do the pick up. Then once my OH gets home I'll walk back to the gym and do an insanity class after which I'll walk the kilometre uphill to another sports centre where I'll do boxercise before finally crawling across the road home to eat my dinner and bed.
All of this should give me around 35-40000 steps and depending on how bouncy zumba is and how much running boxercise includes a total calorie burn for the day of 3700-4000 Calories.12 -
@winegelato I've been lurking in this thread and I want to raise my glass to you (my preferred is Pinot Grigot
) well said!
@firef1y72 wow that is a LOT of activity! I admire it but I also have been there and experienced major burn out (it wasn't pretty, led to a few months of feeling extremely fatigued and depressed a few years ago). Its wise to not over do things, be consistent and active of course by all means, but your joints wont thank you in the long run for wearing them out. (Personally for me at 48 I need think ahead, look after my body/joints so I will be hopefully able to age in a healthy way without pains and aches - thats the aim anyway)
We all have to find our own happy place - for some that is being less active and counting on calories solely to attain their weight loss/maintain. For others they move more which means they can eat more - the body needs more fuel if we move more, thats just reality.
Right now I'm doing a cut (trying to get back to my pre cruise vacation weight), I'm losing .75lb a week averaging 1600 calories a day. I am 1lb away from my low end of maintenance range now and have decided to shift a few more pounds as leeway for the next vacation coming up in a few months. My average day is: 9k steps/ stationary exercise bike 35-40 mins/ strength training 3 x week. So I'm pretty active in general, yet I don't spend more than 45 mins a day on legitimate exercise. That's my happy medium. Been at maintenance for over 4 years and am still learning. (went from 21k average steps a day over a year ago to less than 10k - at that time my TDEE was 2200. Mentally I was on top form but my body eventually told me I was doing too much.) So my TDEE has now dropped to 1930 which is still fine, I can live with that but I'm not prepared for it to be lower so my choice is to keep moving.
My mantra always will be 'knowledge is power' simply because knowing the science behind CI/CO is what keeps me at a healthy weight.
Oops, that ended up being a long reply!
Ruth
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions