1200 calorie limit- too high for short people???

stuffinmuffin

Relax, this isn't a race.

This!

nxd10

height is irrelevant to metabolic rate and calorie consumption/burn. Weight is already figured in.

Height is figured into a specific calorie recommendation for you. It is not figured into a 1200 calorie floor.

I'm 5'10", female, and 53. My floor is different from someone who is 4'11, 13, and male.

1200 is a model based on an average person. Is it pretty good? Yes. Might my floor be HIGHER because I'm taller? Yes. Might a different person's be lower? Yes.

geekyjock76

Here are two studies on mass-specific energy expenditure relative to height:

Abstract
Two observations favor the presence of a lower mass-specific resting energy expenditure (REE/weight) in taller adult humans: an earlier report of height (H)-related differences in relative body composition; and a combined model based on Quetelet and Kleiber's classic equations suggesting that REE/weight proportional, variantH(-0.5). This study tested the hypothesis stating that mass-specific REE scales negatively to height with a secondary aim exploration of related associations between height, weight (W), surface area (SA), and REE. Two independent data sets (n = 344 and 884) were evaluated, both with REE measured by indirect calorimetry and the smaller of the two including fat estimates by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results support Quetelet's equation (W proportional, variantH(2)), but Kleiber's equation approached the interspecific mammal form (REE proportional, variantW(0.75)) only after adding adiposity measures to weight and age as REE predictors. REE/weight scaled as H( approximately (-0.5)) in support of the hypothesis with P values ranging from 0.17 to <0.001. REE and SA both scaled as H( approximately 1.5), and REE/SA was nonsignificantly correlated with height in all groups. These observations suggest that adiposity needs to be considered when evaluating the intraspecific scaling of REE to weight; that relative to their weight, taller subjects require a lower energy intake for replacing resting heat losses than shorter subjects; that fasting endurance, approximated as fat mass/REE, increases as H(0.5); and that thermal balance is maintained independent of stature by evident stable associations between resting heat production and capacity of external heat release. These observations have implications for the modeling of adult human energy requirements and associate with anthropological concepts founded on body size.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17690196

Body size and human energy requirements: Reduced mass-specific total energy expenditure in tall adults.
Heymsfield SB, Pietrobelli A.
Source
Global Center for Scientific Affairs, Merck & Co, Rahway, New Jersey, SUA. Steven_Heymsfield@Merck.Com
Abstract
Mammalian resting energy expenditure (REE) increases as approximately weight(0.75) while mass-specific REE scales as approximately weight(-0.25). Energy needs for replacing resting losses are thus less relative to weight (W) in large compared with small mammals, a classic observation with biological implications. Human weight scales as approximately height(2) and tall adults thus have a greater weight than their short counterparts. However, it remains unknown if mass-specific energy requirements are less in tall adults; allometric models linking total energy expenditure (TEE) and weight with height (H) are lacking. We tested the hypothesis that mass-specific energy requirements scale inversely to height in adults by evaluating TEE (doubly labeled water) data collected by the National Academy of Sciences. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was calculated from TEE, REE (indirect calorimetry), and estimated diet-induced energy expenditure. Main analyses focused on nonmorbidly obese subjects < or =50 yrs of age with non-negative AEE values (n = 404), although results were directionally similar for all samples. Allometric models, including age as a covariate, revealed significantly (P < 0.05) greater REE, AEE, and TEE as a function of height (range H(1.5-1.7)) in both men and women. TEE/W scaled negatively to height ( approximately H(-0.7), P < 0.01) with predicted mass-specific TEE (kcal/kg/d) at +/-2 SD for US height lower in tall compared with short men (40.3 vs. 46.5) and women (37.7 vs. 42.7). REE/W also scaled negatively to height in men (P < 0.001) and women (P < 0.01). Results were generally robust across several different analytic strategies. These observations reveal previously unforeseen associations between human stature and energy requirements that have implications for modeling efforts and provide new links to mammalian biology as a whole.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19856424

Take two individuals with similar builds and guess who has the lower energy expenditure: the taller or shorter person? The answer is in those studies.

EccentricDad

1200 calories is arbitrary. To lose, I have to eat about 1000 as well. As long as you make good choices you will get the nutrients you need at 1000 calories.

^This^
No one else is going to be brave enough to go under 1200 calories due to fear of losing lean muscle mass. But I agree that this isn't a race. It took you many months to get to where you're at, it'll take just the same to get you back down. Fast or slow, if you choose fast you will have to practically starve your body (1000 calories or less) but it can be done with a multi-vitamin and eating a WIDE range of veggies/fruits for your calories; but if you choose slow, you will have results without much effort as long as you're eating healthy at 1200.

Ghostiekins

I have the same issue, i used to weigh 145 and after eating 1200 calories a day with no exercise and got down to 120. But now I can barely eat 1200 calories a day. I eat 800-100 and I function just fine. It actually makes me mad when people with different bodies say anyone eating under 1200 a day have an eating disorder or are unhealthy. Height definitely isn't accounted for. My boyfriend can eat 2500 calories a day and not gain a pound because he is 6'2, but if I did that I would be obese. Do what you feel healthy doing.

adorable_aly

One thing that seems to have been overlooked in this thread is proportion; that is if a woman that is 5"9 lost 10 pounds and a woman who was 5"1 lost 10 pounds, it would be much more noticeable on the shorter woman than on the taller woman, so while yes actual pound by pound the weight loss may be slower, proportionally it still works out. Ergo, shorter women with not much to lose don't need to be losing 1lb a week, but can keep a smaller deficit, eat net 1200kcals minimum, but still get good results from that deficit.

It would be wise to take progress pictures in these cases though, instead of weighing oneself weekly, as the scale wouldn't be accurate enough to track 0.5lbs loss (in my opinion) .

Mitzigan94

At first I was like that probably because I wanna see some fast results. But then later on I realized I've lost 25 pounds eating 1200.. then upping my cals to maintenance.. So nope.. 1200 is okay..

Btw.. Im a sedentary petite and it still worked.

Mitzigan94

One thing that seems to have been overlooked in this thread is proportion; that is if a woman that is 5"9 lost 10 pounds and a woman who was 5"1 lost 10 pounds, it would be much more noticeable on the shorter woman than on the taller woman, so while yes actual pound by pound the weight loss may be slower, proportionally it still works out. Ergo, shorter women with not much to lose don't need to be losing 1lb a week, but can keep a smaller deficit, eat net 1200kcals minimum, but still get good results from that deficit.

It would be wise to take progress pictures in these cases though, instead of weighing oneself weekly, as the scale wouldn't be accurate enough to track 0.5lbs loss (in my opinion) .

^^ this

wizkklx

bump