If Only I Were a 6'2" Man !
Replies
-
I'm 5'9, female and 42 years old. I lose on 1900 calories (+ exercise) a day. My BMR is in the mid-1700's. You might want to increase your muscle mass.0
-
Haha I understand, as I am 5'3" myself.
One other solution is to exercise more
I workout at least 7 hours per week typically... so I am able to "earn" more calories to eat that way. I'm 5'3", 133, and currently losing on 1900 calories (that includes my exercise calories). This calorie level is making me more likely to stick with my healthy changes in the long term. I had started out with 1200 + exercise calories, but I was constantly hungry and felt weak. 1900 is a great fit for me so far. If you'd like to check out that kind of calculation, I used this site: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/ 0 -
The comedic attempt of this thread is not lost on me but...
...I am kind of sick of hearing about women using "Your a male so it is much easier for you!" excuse" etc etc
Half the time it is a thinly veiled excuse neglecting to mention that these individuals don't measure their food or exercise accurately, and other times it is a question of consistency with their (honest) logging..Yeah I went there!
Obviously many factors contribute how to calculate an accurate deficit such as height (obviously your height would contribute to your weight no doubt),weight,age etc but it still boils down to if you are truly at a deficit you will lose No matter what kind of genitalia you have!
There are a vast multitude of short(er) women on mfp who are extremely successful at losing weight and maintaining.
Excuses don't burn calories, hard work and dedication do.
Sarauk2sf is an example of what a petite shorter woman can do...but there are many more and I hope some respond to this thread.
ItsCasey is another example - over 100 pounds lost.0 -
Just wanted to add We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.
or as we say in my house "Wishes don't do dishes, so get off your backside!"0 -
bump
to hear from more successful shorter people, and to add some links...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
Setting Your Calorie and Macro Targets
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1072049-thoughts-on-tdee-calculators-and-switching-from-mfp-to-tdee
Exercise calories
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf
Logging accuracy
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think0 -
yeah, my condolences. I can't imagine trying to get by on 1200 calories a day. 1800 is bad enough.0
-
I say this all of the time - a 5' 2" woman with an appetite of a much taller person. Tall people need more energy for their bodies to function - its just not fair! That's why I work out every day. 300 calories make all of the difference in my happiness.
This all said, I do say this as a joke. My excuse for not losing weight is that I don't eat at a better deficit - period. It's my fault. Not my bad genes!0 -
I lose weight eating 1700-2000 calories and when I eat at maintenance my calories are 2000-2400.
ETA: I am a 5'2, small frame and weigh 116 pounds and 45 yrs old.0 -
I'm a 6'2 female and I've lost just over 160lbs. If I eat over 1400 calories I gain. To continue to lose it's 1200. And I workout for more than 2 hours 6x a week. You just need to find the balance that works. Drink heaps of water. Avoid dodgy fats and salt. It will work. ????
:huh:
I know, hey?
I'm a 6'2" female and I'm sitting at 165 - 168 pounds. I aim to eat 2000, but am still always freakishly hungry. I work out HARD once a week, and pretty hard hopefully 2 other times a week.
I would be so utterly miserable and exhausted if I had to eat 1400 cals and exercise 12hrs / week.
I'd JSF.
eta: that said... I really like the word "dodgy".0 -
"I wish I was a little bit taller, wish I was a baller"0
-
Always feel bad in restaurants with women, since they serve the same portion to both. Much easier for me to burn through it. I get to pig out a bit more. Women always have to leave something on their plates in order to account for the difference.
:huh:
Actually, us women are totally capable of counting those calories, lifting weights, AND cleaning all the food off our plate. I never take leftovers home...ever. Even on a 1,500 calorie plate of pasta.
The point I was making is that men have an innately higher calorie burn and so it's easier for men on average to burn the same portion of food. Sure, women can eat as much as a man and then go out and run laps to make up the difference...but it seems like it would be easier to just eat slightly less given the same portions are being given to two people with differing metabolic needs.
Its just biology. It wasn't meant as an affront to women or feminism or whatever. I was actually trying to be sympathetic to the frustrated women watching men lose weight with less effort.0 -
Always feel bad in restaurants with women, since they serve the same portion to both. Much easier for me to burn through it. I get to pig out a bit more. Women always have to leave something on their plates in order to account for the difference.
:huh:
Actually, us women are totally capable of counting those calories, lifting weights, AND cleaning all the food off our plate. I never take leftovers home...ever. Even on a 1,500 calorie plate of pasta.
The point I was making is that men have an innately higher calorie burn and so it's easier for men on average to burn the same portion of food. Sure, women can eat as much as a man and then go out and run laps to make up the difference...but it seems like it would be easier to just eat slightly less given the same portions are being given to two people with differing metabolic needs.
Its just biology. It wasn't meant as an affront to women or feminism or whatever. I was actually trying to be sympathetic to the frustrated women watching men lose weight with less effort.
In the end, though, doesn't it turn out to be a wash?
You may be able to eat more, but that is because your body consumes more. And in the end,a 300 calorie deficit per day is a 300 calorie deficit - regardless of whether that is because you are burning 3000, so consuming 2700, or whether you are burning 2000 and consuming 1700.
In the end, the deficit is 300 - and that is hard for anyone to take.
I eat 2000 a day minimum. And I am ravenous most days. It's a challenge for me to stay within 2000 - but that is because 2000 is close to, or slightly below my maintenance levels. I have a huge appetite, because i have a huge burn.
I guess what I'm saying is that it is a myth to say that it is easier for men to lose weight. It's not.0 -
Always feel bad in restaurants with women, since they serve the same portion to both. Much easier for me to burn through it. I get to pig out a bit more. Women always have to leave something on their plates in order to account for the difference.
:huh:
Actually, us women are totally capable of counting those calories, lifting weights, AND cleaning all the food off our plate. I never take leftovers home...ever. Even on a 1,500 calorie plate of pasta.
The point I was making is that men have an innately higher calorie burn and so it's easier for men on average to burn the same portion of food. Sure, women can eat as much as a man and then go out and run laps to make up the difference...but it seems like it would be easier to just eat slightly less given the same portions are being given to two people with differing metabolic needs.
Its just biology. It wasn't meant as an affront to women or feminism or whatever. I was actually trying to be sympathetic to the frustrated women watching men lose weight with less effort.
The difference between a guy with my mass and age and a woman with my mass and age is 300 calories a day. That's like an apple and a cup of chocolate milk. In order for this hypothetical guy to lose weight at the same rate I do, he has to do as much activity and be as hungry. He just gets pancakes and eggs for breakfast instead of refrigerator oatmeal and bacon.
That's not feminism. That's math.0 -
Always feel bad in restaurants with women, since they serve the same portion to both. Much easier for me to burn through it. I get to pig out a bit more. Women always have to leave something on their plates in order to account for the difference.
:huh:
Actually, us women are totally capable of counting those calories, lifting weights, AND cleaning all the food off our plate. I never take leftovers home...ever. Even on a 1,500 calorie plate of pasta.
The point I was making is that men have an innately higher calorie burn and so it's easier for men on average to burn the same portion of food. Sure, women can eat as much as a man and then go out and run laps to make up the difference...but it seems like it would be easier to just eat slightly less given the same portions are being given to two people with differing metabolic needs.
Its just biology. It wasn't meant as an affront to women or feminism or whatever. I was actually trying to be sympathetic to the frustrated women watching men lose weight with less effort.
The difference between a guy with my mass and age and a woman with my mass and age is 300 calories a day. That's like an apple and a cup of chocolate milk. In order for this hypothetical guy to lose weight at the same rate I do, he has to do as much activity and be as hungry. He just gets pancakes and eggs for breakfast instead of refrigerator oatmeal and bacon.
That's not feminism. That's math.
ON NOES NOT TEH MATHS!0 -
The difference between a guy with my mass and age and a woman with my mass and age is 300 calories a day. That's like an apple and a cup of chocolate milk. In order for this hypothetical guy to lose weight at the same rate I do, he has to do as much activity and be as hungry. He just gets pancakes and eggs for breakfast instead of refrigerator oatmeal and bacon.
That's not feminism. That's math.
At 300 calories that's a 15% difference against a typical 2000 calorie diet. Which is very significant, especially when men and women are served the same size portions at restaurants. Which was my entire point.
People are trying waaay to hard to find anything offensive to get upset about.
Why is it so problematic to point out that larger people burn more energy than smaller ones. The only reason it even applies to male-female is because of the average. Obviously there are plenty of smaller men and larger women.
Why this knee-jerk defensiveness? Which complex is this, exactly, where its time to get upset that someone physically less energy demanding burns less energy?0 -
I guess what I'm saying is that it is a myth to say that it is easier for men to lose weight. It's not.
Well, you are wrong about that, since of course a smaller, less muscle dense body will have to either burn more through exercise or eat less through caloric restriction, given that the diet given to both is the same.
That's mathematics. A larger engine will tend to burn more fuel. Don't know what to tell you.0 -
I guess what I'm saying is that it is a myth to say that it is easier for men to lose weight. It's not.
Well, you are wrong about that, since of course a smaller, less muscle dense body will have to either burn more through exercise or eat less through caloric restriction, given that the diet given to both is the same.
That's mathematics. A larger engine will tend to burn more fuel. Don't know what to tell you.
If you think I'm upset, offended, or even remotely bothered by this thread... You're wrong.
I'm just having a discussion.
I appreciate what you have to say.0 -
I'd love to be 6'2" but still female haha. I'm 5'3.5" 118 lbs and can lose weight at 2200+ calories. .. and I'm female. At least, last I checked. :laugh:
ETA- I do 3 hours a week strength training, walk maybe two days, take care of my kids, work 3 days a week cleaning and sometimes I chase balls around the fence when we hit them over0 -
I'm a 6'3 man and I've actually been wondering about this for a while. I need about 2250 calories to maintain my weight without exercise which is pretty high. But isn't it all proportional? I can eat a restaurant-sized meal easily enough, which is a lot of food, but shouldn't it feel the same to me as it would to a person 80% my size who eats 80% of the same meal? There are people who eat >4000 calories every day, but if I had to do the same I would probably feel pretty terrible because my body couldn't handle it. So most people eat proportionally the same amount of food, right?0
-
all of the calorie differences that come from size differences are neither here nor there
why?
because unless someone is in the habit of overeating, or they have a medical issue, the body regulates their appetite according to their calorie needs. This is a mechanism which evolved because Homo erectus didn't have the slightest idea what a calorie was never mind knew how many he or she had to eat in a day.... but if they didn't eat enough they got hungry and that spurred them to go out hunting and/or gathering to get food.
If you eat in a calorie deficit, you will be hungry. It doesn't matter whether your TDEE is 1500 cals/day or 3000 cals/day... if you eat less than that you'll be hungry. So a big man may get to eat more calories than a small woman with a similar activity level to him, but the big man is going to be that much more hungry. Even the advice "do more exercise then you can eat more" won't change the hunger issue, as doing more exercise makes you more hungry (BUT for health reasons it's much better to do more exercise and eat more! there's more to this than hunger control)
The problem is that a lot of women who have long term male partners are in the habit of matching their male partners' food portions size for size, and so they're in the habit of overeating while their male partner isn't. And when it comes to dieting, women tend to underestimate their calorie needs (i.e. swing too far in the opposite direction) and then have a harder time sticking to the diet. This results in her gaining weight while her male partner doesn't and finding it harder to lose weight than he does. Note that this is a trend that I'm describing, there are of course exceptions in both sexes. This is why there are so many on this forum saying eat more eat more eat more to so many women. You don't need to lose 2lb a week, if you want to be able to eat more, set your goal to 1lb or even 0.5lb a week (the less you have to lose the smaller the deficit should be and the slower the rate of fat loss) and it's very unlikely that you'll still be hungry all the time and lament that you don't have enough food to eat.
There are medical issues, including some kinds of medication, that screw up the appetite regulation system, leading to weight gain due to the body not getting the "stop eating now" signal when they've eaten enough... someone trying to stay in calorie deficit with this going on is genuinely going to find it harder to lose weight than someone who doesn't have these issues because they'll be suffering from excessive hunger even when they're eating the right amount of calories. For everyone else, the appetite signals kick in when you eat at maintenance, and if you eat at a small, sensible, deficit, you may experience very mild hunger because you're a little below maintenance, but if you're a lot below maintenance then either you'll be extremely hungry all the time, or your appetite shuts down altogether (but then comes back with a vengence in the form on binge eating, which is also a survival response that prevented Homo erectus starving to death).
If you're eating way too little because someone told you that short women can't eat much more than 1200 cals/day then you are going to have a bad time with hunger and find it hard to stick to the plan. I'm 5'1" and my maintenance calories are 2100 cals/day... when cutting I don't eat less than 1800 cals/day. If I believed the people who said that at my height I can't eat more than around 1200-1300 cals/day to lose weight, then I'd be chewing my arm off. And I'm not even that active. (I lift but don't do much cardio).0 -
This. (btw, I love your posts)all of the calorie differences that come from size differences are neither here nor there
why?
because unless someone is in the habit of overeating, or they have a medical issue, the body regulates their appetite according to their calorie needs. This is a mechanism which evolved because Homo erectus didn't have the slightest idea what a calorie was never mind knew how many he or she had to eat in a day.... but if they didn't eat enough they got hungry and that spurred them to go out hunting and/or gathering to get food.
If you eat in a calorie deficit, you will be hungry. It doesn't matter whether your TDEE is 1500 cals/day or 3000 cals/day... if you eat less than that you'll be hungry.
And, once again, YES, it might be easier for a big man to create a bigger deficit, but instead of focusing on meaningless things like "1lb per week", focus on bodyweight%. Imagine a big man creating a topic "Oh noes, both me and my girlfriend lost 20lbs but she's down two pants sizes and I'm not! Life's unfair".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions