is it more difficult for short people to lose weight?

bvgarcia826

I have to agree that it's mentally harder to lose weight only b/c our society has a specific "Serving size" and I don't know about everyone else but I eat whatever food is on my plate (which is only a good thing when there's a plate of vegetables in front of me) and that food was portioned out for a much larger person than my size.

i think it's just harder b/c we have to have more discipline. We live in a world where 2000 calories is considered the daily caloric needs and well if I ate those kind of calories every day I would blow up like a balloon even if I was following my "maintenance" exercise regime.

Still going to keep going though! It's nice to know there's other shorties out there, gives me hope! I'm 5 feet tall btw --> my fiance calls me fun-size ;-)

Verdenal

I'm 5' 2". When I was younger, it wasn't hard to lose weight, but I never was really overweight so we're talking at most 4-5 pounds. Back then, I never believed I could eat as much as taller, bigger people, although I did eat pretty much what I wanted. Now that I'm older, I have to watch what I eat very carefully. My metabolism has slowed, and I'm not that active. As at least one person has said, a 5-pound gain on an average person looks like 10-pounds on a short one. There's also the issue of how you carry your weight -- if your body favors certain areas for fat you can look heavy very easily with a much smaller weight gain than a taller, bigger person.

GaleHawkins

Dave198lbs wrote: »

your height, assuming no metabolic issues, has no affect on weight gain or loss.

Why do you say that? If I am 5' and you are 7' and we both gain 15 pounds I am going to look more fat for you in the least. Right?

segacs

bvgarcia826 wrote: »

I have to agree that it's mentally harder to lose weight only b/c our society has a specific "Serving size" and I don't know about everyone else but I eat whatever food is on my plate (which is only a good thing when there's a plate of vegetables in front of me) and that food was portioned out for a much larger person than my size.

i think it's just harder b/c we have to have more discipline. We live in a world where 2000 calories is considered the daily caloric needs and well if I ate those kind of calories every day I would blow up like a balloon even if I was following my "maintenance" exercise regime.

Still going to keep going though! It's nice to know there's other shorties out there, gives me hope! I'm 5 feet tall btw --> my fiance calls me fun-size ;-)

This. I'm 5'1" and I agree, there's nothing inherently difficult about it... except for living in a world that was designed for much bigger people.

BombshellPhoenix

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Dave198lbs wrote: »

your height, assuming no metabolic issues, has no affect on weight gain or loss.

Why do you say that? If I am 5' and you are 7' and we both gain 15 pounds I am going to look more fat for you in the least. Right?

What does weight distribution have to do with the ability to lose weight?


..... oh right. ... it doesn't.

segacs

I'd also add that the small inaccuracies inherent in tracking food form a great percentage of our deficit and thus matter more. In other words, a 20% deficit for me could be only 300 calories, whereas someone bigger's 20% deficit could mean upwards of 700-800 calories. It's all relative, except that the margin of error in absolute terms is smaller -- it's very easy to be off by a couple hundred calories if you eyeball instead of weigh portions, fail to accurately count cooking oil, stuff like that.

There's also the fact that most calculators, guidelines, standards, etc. are all calculated with the "average" woman in mind and then adjusted from there. So those of us more than a couple of standard deviations away from the mean (i.e. very short or very tall) could have far more inaccuracy in using these tools.

GaleHawkins

BombshellPhoenix wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Dave198lbs wrote: »

your height, assuming no metabolic issues, has no affect on weight gain or loss.

Why do you say that? If I am 5' and you are 7' and we both gain 15 pounds I am going to look more fat for you in the least. Right?

What does weight distribution have to do with the ability to lose weight?


..... oh right. ... it doesn't.

Hey you caught that.

shoshanashoes

oh my gosh yes. For me it's a about acceptable options at 1200 calories a day. I'm only 4 foot 10. My tall male colleagues who are losing weight and happy to go to places like Nandos and find options which fit in with their plans. For me, I'll go to a restaurant and the best option will be 600 calories, which is already half of my daily cals. Likewise, if someone brings cake into the office then that one small slice for me is a lot more meaningful than for a taller person because it's a higher percentage of what I'm allowed to eat if i want to make any progress.

Sinistrous

If you feel it's harder, workout harder and show them who's boss.

paquitoBoston

I get a little disheartened as it is so hard.I am only 4' 9

Merkavar

I think the reason short people think they have it hard is that they look at pounds when they should look at percentages.

If I lose 5lb I doubt anyone could notice it but on a short person 5lb is like losing an entire leg.

5lb to me is like 2.5% loss but 5lb on a short person is more like 4%.

So it seems logical to me for a short person to lose 3lb when I lose 5lb if we both put in similar effort. But they see this difference and conclude its harder for short people.

DanSTL82

Of course taller people can eat more, but taller people are also hungrier than you are, because they have more mass to feed into than you do. So it all evens out.

katkins73

I used to think weight loss was hard because I am only 5f1 and was strictly eating my 12000 cals plus exercise cals which were 200-300 a day. One day I asked myself what is different now than when I was younger and I realised I was so much busier all the time so my TDEE was much higher. I realised that for me it was not a matter of cutting back more calories but to get more active on the whole - not just work outs. I bought a Fitbit Zip and worked my steps up to a minimum of 15,000 a day but I am often over 20,000 and on busy days can reach 30,000 without feeling it has been a big effort. I am never hungry and eat different amounts each day. My Fitbit says in the last 30 days I have burnt an average of 2296 cals and have eaten 1797. I only ever have a scale loss the week after TOTM but average around 1lb a week loss.

I am almost 43.
SW 173
CW 130 (but hoping for a loss next wee)
GW 121ish?

I'm busy. I am a mum, I work part time and am studying for a master's degree. However, instead of sitting around in the evenings I will often go for a walk or go in the treadmill while watching something on Netflix. I walk to the station in the next town when going to uni and then walk in my breaks. I walk to work which is 5-6km each way too. It means I have to get up earlier and be more organised but it is so worth it to eat a decent amount of calories. I also pace the train platforms and get steps at other times when I would traditionally stand around like when waiting to meet a friend or if I am with someone shopping and they are looking at stuff. It all mounts up!

I really think the key for petites is to increase activity rather than eat mega low cals. Increasing our TDEE is the way to go. It feels effortless now. I hope this can be helpful to someone. I never actually believed I could get my body from my twenties back but I have and I am not even finished yet!

jacquifrench304

Would think it is similar no matter the height , and subjective I have always been short so have no way to know if it would be easier if I was taller ... But some days my hubby has room for more food when losing than I do when maintaining

Pawsforme

No.

And I'm only 4'10" (on a good day).

Of course I need fewer calories than someone who's taller, but that's true of many other situations besides height. Men can eat more than women. People who are more active can eat more than people who are sedentary. Younger people can eat more than older people.

Do I think because I eat much less than my much taller DH that I get physically hungrier than he does? No.

The portion sizes we see as "normal" aren't really normal for the vast majority of people. Not just us shorties.

trjjoy

I am 5"3.5 and I also eat 1200 calories before exercise. I don't feel deprived. I would suggest you eat food that fills you up nicely. Veggies should become your BFF. Soups and salads are the bomb at keeping me satisfied.

MommyL2015

It's not any harder than anyone else, we just have to be more diligent with being accurate with our calorie intake and a little more patient.

Francl27

Holy necro post.

RebeccaNaegle

I just think its harder due to science. lol. I am 5' 4" and 119. and YES it is harder but its only due to the fact that because you are smaller, your body requires less food to keep it going and what it needs. I say often, that I wish I were taller so I could eat more! lol

jensauce

Francl27 wrote: »

Holy necro post.

Right?

CeeBeeSlim

@katkins73 - Thanks for sharing. This was very helpful and got me thinking, too. The harder weight loss now is not so much that I'm older - 52 - and my metabolism has slowed, but that when I was younger, I was like the Ever-ready bunny - always, always moving. Not so much now -and it should be more than just the hour or two I'm at the gym every other day. I'm pretty sedentary outside of that so will start walking and moving much more. Do you find the Fitbit helpful - had convinced myself they were gimmicky - but may give it a try..

tcatcarson

Yes it is - being closer to the ground increases the effects of gravity, up to 10 - 15%.

If two people have identical mass, the smaller one will weigh more because of this.

47Jacqueline

This is kind of like the "a pound of this weighs more than a pound of that" topic.