Harder for Short Women?

HaleyAlli
HaleyAlli Posts: 911 Member
edited September 27 in Health and Weight Loss
I have noticed a seeming pattern with short women, that it's harder losing weight. Why is this? Is it because our metabolism is slower and it's easier to overeat? Do we have less muscle? Or does it just SEEM like we're not losing as much weight because there isn't as much to lose?

Or, are we imagining things and it's actually the same as it is for everyone else? :P
«1

Replies

  • JesaGrace
    JesaGrace Posts: 799 Member
    I'm a shorty, too....*sigh*....
  • 00trayn
    00trayn Posts: 1,849 Member
    Shout out to the shorties! Hahaha

    It definitely depends on a ton of factors. Being shorter, it's entirely possible our metabolisms aren't as fast. And we do need less calories per day so getting a big deficit is difficult unless we undereat (which is also really bad). I've realized that us shorties can have WAY different distribution of fat, so if it likes to hang out in one place like our stomach or thighs, it's hard to get rid of. Like I could fit in size 6 pants if the thighs weren't so darn tight. However there is a plus side. If we lose 5 lbs, it's most likely more noticeable since our fat is concentrated on a smaller frame. And I've managed to build up muscle so that I'm a size 6/8 even with weighing 150 lbs still, overweight for my 5'2.5" frame. But every person has challenges losing weight, short or tall.

    But in general, I'd say that the calorie deficits have something to do with it. Our resting calorie burn is lower than a taller person, so if we eat the same amount as them, they might lose and we get stuck. It's hard to strike a balance.
  • kelsully
    kelsully Posts: 1,008 Member
    I think it has to do with height playing into BMR. I get less calories at maintenance then neighbor who is 11 inches taller but similar shape/fitness etc...but portions sizes at restaraunts etc are not determined by height...ie...short lady gets 12 fries and tall lady gets 16 fries...etc...we all get our maintenance cals and yes short women will get less
  • HaleyAlli
    HaleyAlli Posts: 911 Member
    Shout out to the shorties! Hahaha

    It definitely depends on a ton of factors. Being shorter, it's entirely possible our metabolisms aren't as fast. And we do need less calories per day so getting a big deficit is difficult unless we undereat (which is also really bad). I've realized that us shorties can have WAY different distribution of fat, so if it likes to hang out in one place like our stomach or thighs, it's hard to get rid of. Like I could fit in size 6 pants if the thighs weren't so darn tight. However there is a plus side. If we lose 5 lbs, it's most likely more noticeable since our fat is concentrated on a smaller frame. And I've managed to build up muscle so that I'm a size 6/8 even with weighing 150 lbs still, overweight for my 5'2.5" frame. But every person has challenges losing weight, short or tall.

    But in general, I'd say that the calorie deficits have something to do with it. Our resting calorie burn is lower than a taller person, so if we eat the same amount as them, they might lose and we get stuck. It's hard to strike a balance.

    Wow I thought you were taller! Haha :)

    But yeah, I have a difficult time deciding how much of a calorie deficit I need... It seemed like I actually lost more when I ate more before TOM started, but then it went back up so I panicked and lowered my calorie intake... I also have a lot of muscle for an overweight person... So yeah, I guess it's just trial and error for me right now...

    ETA: @kellysul--That makes a lot of sense! *sigh*...the world wasn't made for shorties :P lol.
  • 00trayn
    00trayn Posts: 1,849 Member
    Haha, nope, I'm def a shorty. My profile picture has me in 4" heels at a wedding, hahaha. But I've lowered my body fat 5 quite a bit in the last 6 months, so I've got quite a bit of muscle. Which actually helps speed up your metabolism.

    And don't be afraid to eat more. I've been eating more (maybe averaging 1500 or 1600 a day) and I've been doing much better in the last week.
  • HaleyAlli
    HaleyAlli Posts: 911 Member
    Oh okay, well you look great! It gives me hope to know you're close to my height haha :)

    And about eating more, that is such a huge relief, you have no idea! I love to eat and if I can lose a lot while eating more I'm def going to do that lol :)
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    It's harder because we have less body to maintain, so require less calories to do so. A 5' woman will have to eat considerably less to maintain her weight than a 5' 9" one, as a 5'9" woman should weigh more.

    Unfortunately our hunger doesn't seem to be attached to our height.
  • HaleyAlli
    HaleyAlli Posts: 911 Member
    Yeah I noticed that while I was at college... My taller friends were stick skinny and ate MORE than me and I was overweight eating grilled chicken and salad :mad: Life's not fair lol!
  • baisleac
    baisleac Posts: 2,019 Member
    http://www.burnthefat.com/how_to_fix_slow_female_fat_loss.html

    It's tougher for women than men.
    +
    It's tougher for shorter people than tall people.
    =
    It's a pain in the tookus for shorter women.
  • adougherty10
    adougherty10 Posts: 50
    Thanks for posting this! I've always wondered the same thing! My husband & I basically have the same diet. He is 5'9 & 130 pounds, I am 5'1 and 157 pounds - metabolism must play a part in this! I know I need to exercise more & drink more water! If you find another trick please share with us shorties!!! :)
  • cupotee
    cupotee Posts: 181 Member
    I think it's because we need less calories than taller women, but we're accustomed to the same serving sizes as taller women. Even though there's really not a huge difference in BMR, a little bit adds up.
  • unhinge
    unhinge Posts: 318 Member
    I have always blamed it on gravity.... closer to gravitational pull S L O W S D O W N my metabolism :^o
  • seansquared
    seansquared Posts: 328 Member
    Height doesn't matter, as far as I'm aware. We all have roughly the same size organs, muscle requires the same amount of calories to act, etc.

    What matters is lean body mass.

    For example, a 175lb woman at 30% bodyfat has a total energy expenditure (TEE) of roughly 1880 calories per day (based on a desk job). A 175lb woman at 12% bodyfat, on the other hand, has a TEE of roughly 2250 per day with the same desk job. While both women weigh the same, they will look completely different. Height be darned.

    Based on your pics alone (i.e. educated guess - only calipers or bioimpedence would tell the actual number) you're roughly 40% bodyfat. At 167 you only require 1600 calories a day to maintain that weight. To lose weight, then, you need to drop down beneath that - though healthily so as in not 1100 but maybe 1300. That would be a ~300cal/day deficit, or 1lb of fat loss every 10 days.


    Heavy lifting, either by yourself, with a friend, or with the help of a personal trainer, along with proper eating will get your lean body mass up which means it slowly but steadily gets easier to lose weight. If you get down to 30% bodyfat, suddenly that 1300 moves up to 1500 so you get to eat a little more while still steadily losing weight, or stick with 1300 and have a 500cal/day deficit which is 1lb/week.
  • deniseoahu
    deniseoahu Posts: 4
    I am 5'1.25 inches. I lost 1/2" apparently over the years,I'm 46, disc compression they say. Even my twin is 2" taller than I am. I think we have a disadvantage as well. Something we have to think about.
  • kathyhull
    kathyhull Posts: 327 Member
    I have always blamed it on gravity.... closer to gravitational pull S L O W S D O W N my metabolism :^o

    I'm going with her theory! Short, female and over 50 makes it EVEN HARDER to lose weight - gravitational pull has had more years to work.
  • swebb1103
    swebb1103 Posts: 200 Member
    Every pound makes me look twice as fat as it does taller people! Which I hate.... that's the only part of being short I don't like. Well, and not being able to see at the movie theater if a normal sized adult sits in front of me!
  • smersh
    smersh Posts: 36
    Thanks for posting this! I've always wondered the same thing! My husband & I basically have the same diet. He is 5'9 & 130 pounds, I am 5'1 and 157 pounds - metabolism must play a part in this! I know I need to exercise more & drink more water! If you find another trick please share with us shorties!!! :)

    The other thing you might look at is your portions. If you're eating similar sized portions, you're getting similar amounts of calories - but you might have very different caloric needs. I need a full 500 calories a day more than my wife does, all other things being equal.
  • emcando
    emcando Posts: 48
    To be honest, I don't think one has to do with another.
    There are plenty of short, slim people.

    I think it's genetic make up and luck of the draw.
    Some people short or tall have to work at it.

    I never had to work in school. I danced, did gymnastics, cheered, etc... But I didn't know how to eat right.
    Take all the movement away and voila, weight gain.


    I think it's food habits. I think it's the types of foods you eat. I think it's age, genetics, etc... but height - nope.
    Too many in shape athletic short folk.

    Sorry...
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    I put on weight matching what my husband ate. He is 5'11", I am 5'5". When we ate the same, we weighed the same, which meant he was a fine weight for his height, and I was podgy! Smaller ideal weight = smaller calorie requirement (before exercise).
  • baisleac
    baisleac Posts: 2,019 Member
    Height doesn't matter, as far as I'm aware. We all have roughly the same size organs, muscle requires the same amount of calories to act, etc.

    Height does matter. A smaller person's organs are smaller, their muscles are smaller, their bones are smaller.
    What matters is lean body mass.

    Truth.
    For example, a 175lb woman at 30% bodyfat has a total energy expenditure (TEE) of roughly 1880 calories per day (based on a desk job). A 175lb woman at 12% bodyfat, on the other hand, has a TEE of roughly 2250 per day with the same desk job. While both women weigh the same, they will look completely different. Height be darned.

    A 175 lb woman at 30% body fat in an acceptable range.

    A 175 lb woman at 12% body fat is bordering closely on unhealthy (10-12% BF is ESSENTIAL fat for a female).
    Heavy lifting, either by yourself, with a friend, or with the help of a personal trainer, along with proper eating will get your lean body mass up which means it slowly but steadily gets easier to lose weight.

    True.

    Comparative Example using lean body mass to calculate BMR/TDEE

    5'10" female
    170 lbs
    LBM: 100 lb
    BF: 41% (unhealthy)
    BMR: 1351.94
    Moderate activity TDEE: 2095.51

    5'2" Female
    125 lb
    LBM: 100 lbs
    BF: 20% (athletic)
    BMR: 1351.94
    Moderate activity TDEE: 2095.51

    Which one had to work harder to get where they are?

    Now let's show that 5'10" female at 20% Body fat:

    5'10" female
    170 lbs
    LBM: 136 lb
    BF: 20% (athletic)
    BMR: 1705.32
    Moderate activity TDEE: 2643.25

    Lean Body Mass matters, but a smaller frame can only go so high.
  • littlelol
    littlelol Posts: 539
    im only 4ft 11 its a pain ha
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    It's simple physics. There is less of you to move around....this means calories requirements are lower.
  • seansquared
    seansquared Posts: 328 Member
    A 175 lb woman at 12% body fat is bordering closely on unhealthy (10-12% BF is ESSENTIAL fat for a female).

    Exactly why I didn't go lower; 12% being the suggested absolute minimum for all women outside of the pro bodybuilding circuit.
    Lean Body Mass matters, but a smaller frame can only go so high.

    Lean body mass is still the most important thing here. I don't really understand why you showed what I had already showed? My point is that no, height really doesn't matter. Ultimately lean body mass is #1, with everything else a distant 2nd. A really tall person at 40% and a really short person at 40% could both look completely different at the same weight, but they have the same LBM, which means the same caloric deficit is required for weight loss.

    Proof? Your own calculations: at 175lbs and regardless of whether you're 5'10" or 5'2", BMR and TDEE are exactly the same.
  • baisleac
    baisleac Posts: 2,019 Member
    A 175 lb woman at 12% body fat is bordering closely on unhealthy (10-12% BF is ESSENTIAL fat for a female).

    Exactly why I didn't go lower; 12% being the suggested absolute minimum for all women outside of the pro bodybuilding circuit.
    Lean Body Mass matters, but a smaller frame can only go so high.

    Lean body mass is still the most important thing here. I don't really understand why you showed what I had already showed? My point is that no, height really doesn't matter. Ultimately lean body mass is #1, with everything else a distant 2nd. A really tall person at 40% and a really short person at 40% could both look completely different at the same weight, but they have the same LBM, which means the same caloric deficit is required for weight loss.

    Proof? Your own calculations: at 175lbs and regardless of whether you're 5'10" or 5'2", BMR and TDEE are exactly the same.

    The point being, the original point of the post. It is harder for short people.
  • seansquared
    seansquared Posts: 328 Member
    The point being, the original point of the post. It is harder for short people.

    That makes no sense. You yourself just posted math that says 175lbs = 175lbs. All you changed was bodyfat%. Height had nothing to do with it.

    Katch-McArdle requires weight, bodyfat %, and activity level. Height is nowhere in the math.
  • seansquared
    seansquared Posts: 328 Member
    Back to the original poster I'd say it's "harder" because it looks different. It's not actually harder at all, the caloric requirements are the same, but being 5'0", 150lbs, 20% bf looks completely different from being 6'0", 150lbs, 20% bf.
  • baisleac
    baisleac Posts: 2,019 Member
    The point being, the original point of the post. It is harder for short people.

    That makes no sense. You yourself just posted math that says 175lbs = 175lbs. All you changed was bodyfat%. Height had nothing to do with it.

    Katch-McArdle requires weight, bodyfat %, and activity level. Height is nowhere in the math.

    Is it harder to get to 40% body fat or is it harder to get to 20% body fat? They had the same LBM, yes. But which one had to work harder to get there?
  • seansquared
    seansquared Posts: 328 Member
    Is it harder to get to 40% body fat or is it harder to get to 20% body fat? They had the same LBM, yes. But which one had to work harder to get there?

    Height doesn't matter there either, unfortunately. Just means Person A has lower LBM than Person B.
  • baisleac
    baisleac Posts: 2,019 Member
    Is it harder to get to 40% body fat or is it harder to get to 20% body fat? They had the same LBM, yes. But which one had to work harder to get there?

    Height doesn't matter there either, unfortunately. Just means Person A has lower LBM than Person B.

    Let's try this from a different angle:

    Now let's show that 5'10" female at 20% Body fat:

    5'10" female
    170 lbs
    LBM: 136 lb
    BF: 20% (athletic)
    BMR: 1705.32
    Moderate activity TDEE: 2643.25


    Show me a 5'2" woman with 136 lb LBM. Hint... it will have to be a pro body builder or significantly overweight.
  • bellinachuchina
    bellinachuchina Posts: 498 Member
    Shout out to the shorties! Hahaha

    It definitely depends on a ton of factors. Being shorter, it's entirely possible our metabolisms aren't as fast. And we do need less calories per day so getting a big deficit is difficult unless we undereat (which is also really bad). I've realized that us shorties can have WAY different distribution of fat, so if it likes to hang out in one place like our stomach or thighs, it's hard to get rid of. Like I could fit in size 6 pants if the thighs weren't so darn tight. However there is a plus side. If we lose 5 lbs, it's most likely more noticeable since our fat is concentrated on a smaller frame. And I've managed to build up muscle so that I'm a size 6/8 even with weighing 150 lbs still, overweight for my 5'2.5" frame. But every person has challenges losing weight, short or tall.

    But in general, I'd say that the calorie deficits have something to do with it. Our resting calorie burn is lower than a taller person, so if we eat the same amount as them, they might lose and we get stuck. It's hard to strike a balance.

    All of this ^ :)

    Fellow shawty here, and oh, how I've wished I could just grow a few inches. I would look so much slimmer if I was taller lol. Oh, well!

    Plus, I agree, it's not more difficult to lose if you can get past the BMR/less calories factor, our weight just looks different.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories