I hate men....
Replies
-
KingofWisdom wrote: »
False. Eating beyond capacity is what got us here in the first place.
I was not regularly eating to the point where I was stuffed when I was gaining all this weight. But I guess you know me better than I know myself.0 -
My husband is 6'2" and in the 230s. MFP gives him 1800 something as his goal and that's what he's eating. He is losing fast. I wish he would eat more but it's not like I can force him to. I eat 150-200 calories more than him right now. Feels weird.0
-
Um, I am set to 1,500 when I am set to lose.... I am not hungry. Ever. I lift reasonably heavy and cardio for funsies and eat extra calories those days -- 1,700-1,800 total. If you are experiencing hunger it's likely one of your nutritional requirements isn't actually being met, despite eating a balanced diet -- or your % split among your macros is off for your satiety levels. For instance carbs don't do a lot for me personally MOST of the time. I can eat 800 calories of bread/pasta/rice and be hungry in 2 hours. 800 calories of chicken or cheese -- I am full for 9-10 hours. This is especially true when I am more sedentary. My husband gets 1,000 more calories a day -- I am not usually jealous because I eat plenty of food. The only other thing to maybe have checked out -- if your stomach produces too much acid. I had this as a young adult - it was odd because I felt hungry even when I wasn't. Mine eventually self corrected.0
-
I hear ya! I'm very petite at 5'0" 92.5 lbs maintenance calories 1400-1600 while my SO is 6'0" 165 lbs. I don't know his daily calorie allowance as he never counts calories but eats very healthy food in moderation.
The key word is moderation-- for him a cup of Three Twins ice cream (380 calories) is in moderation.. However, for a tiny person that's one meal for me! Since we both love yummy food and dining out we split our food 80/20. We love the outdoors and very active. That helps burn those calories when I just have to eat what my SO is eating!! I can't deprive myself of a good thing sometimes. Have a great day everyone!! Nic~0 -
Honestly my brothers eat pure garbage and stay rail thin. I eat Burger King for one meal and face a 4lb weight gain the next day!0
-
-
maryjane_88 wrote: »Honestly my brothers eat pure garbage and stay rail thin. I eat Burger King for one meal and face a 4lb weight gain the next day!
Sodium and water retention. Unless you are eating everything on the menu, then you didn't eat the 14,000 calories necessary to gain 4 pounds.
0 -
So, I've been at this weight loss fitness business for quite a while, intentionally with MFP for over a year. Now, my husband and son, who are both overweight, are in a weight loss "challenge", which is great for them, since my husband is in the obese category and Type II diabetic, and my son who is only 26 is already seeing issues with hypertension and high cholesterol. However, my son has just started tracking, and he is allowed 2300 calories yet he'll still lose. Yesterday, he said he was under by 600 because he's cut back to one soda a day. This is great, but I am also so jealous, since my average allowance, even when active is only around 1300-1500 and under 1200 if not super active (I'm tiny and old --5'1.5" and 56). I've started using a FitBit HR, which I sync with MFP, and I got under 1400 calories, even doing a zumba class and and a 1 1/2 mile walk. Despite eating small nutrient dense, low calorie meals, watching my macros, etc, , I am often still hungry. I have pretty good self-control and try to stave off nightime hunger by drinking a cup of flavored tea at night before bed, but when I wake up in the morning, I have to eat right away or I'm about ready to pass out. I'd love to have 1800 calories and still lose, but there's only so much I can up my activity level. Any other gals out here have similar "Calorie envy" with their guy friends/family members?
It's all relative...I can cut on 2300 calories per day too...and it pretty much sucks...because for me, 2300 calories isn't a lot of food and while I'm certainly not starving, I'm not exactly satisfied at that intake either.0 -
kmsoucy457 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »But it's relative. A deficit is a deficit. A deficit puts your body under stress because you are eating less than you should to maintain. No matter what size you are, it's the same relative amount of food.
As a short woman who has never been more than a little overweight I beg to differ. I get 1200 calories per day (without exercise) to lose less than 1lb per week. I can easily house that in one meal at a restaurant or family gathering, especially if alcohol or other tasty beverages are involved. My solution is eating back exercise calories, otherwise I would be perpetually hungry. I also drink a LOT of water, as in I stop counting at 9-10 glasses; it helps!
So OP I feel your pain. It is very difficult not to compare and get jealous while sitting at the same table as your SO. Mine isn't exceptionally tall (5'9"), but is rather muscle-y and has an extremely active job, so has trouble eating enough to maintain his weight. I comfort myself with the fact that, while his woes may not be the same as mine, he still has his own
I think you missed the point...0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
It's all relative...I can cut on 2300 calories per day too...and it pretty much sucks...because for me, 2300 calories isn't a lot of food and while I'm certainly not starving, I'm not exactly satisfied at that intake either.
This.
I'm a taller girl so I need around 2500 to maintain. I can lose eating around 2000 cals but there is still a deficit of 500 cals and my body certainly feels it. 2000 cals may seem like a lot of food to the OP, but I have more mass to carry around, so for me, it is not.0 -
KarenJanine wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
It's all relative...I can cut on 2300 calories per day too...and it pretty much sucks...because for me, 2300 calories isn't a lot of food and while I'm certainly not starving, I'm not exactly satisfied at that intake either.
This.
I'm a taller girl so I need around 2500 to maintain. I can lose eating around 2000 cals but there is still a deficit of 500 cals and my body certainly feels it. 2000 cals may seem like a lot of food to the OP, but I have more mass to carry around, so for me, it is not.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »But it's relative. A deficit is a deficit. A deficit puts your body under stress because you are eating less than you should to maintain. No matter what size you are, it's the same relative amount of food.
As a short woman who has never been more than a little overweight I beg to differ. I get 1200 calories per day (without exercise) to lose less than 1lb per week. I can easily house that in one meal at a restaurant or family gathering, especially if alcohol or other tasty beverages are involved. My solution is eating back exercise calories, otherwise I would be perpetually hungry. I also drink a LOT of water, as in I stop counting at 9-10 glasses; it helps!
So OP I feel your pain. It is very difficult not to compare and get jealous while sitting at the same table as your SO. Mine isn't exceptionally tall (5'9"), but is rather muscle-y and has an extremely active job, so has trouble eating enough to maintain his weight. I comfort myself with the fact that, while his woes may not be the same as mine, he still has his own
I think you missed the point...
Have I? I understand that lack of satiety is to be expected when eating at a deficit, for anyone of any size and proportional calorie allotment. The human body isn't designed to "want" to lose weight (an opinion based on my belief that we are still hardwired to the feast and famine cycles of our caveman days, again just my own opinion), so we shouldI feel some discomfort during weight loss (though not everyone does). That is the point you are making? If so a more than valid point. If not do correct me (I do not say that sarcastically).
But -stay with me here, i know i'm reaching- with small variation a short person has about the same size mouth as a tall person (or rather height makes a small enough difference in determining such a thing). We can take roughly the same size bite out of the same size food item, so given that we chew, swallow and continue to consume at the same rate, we will eat the same amount of food in the same amount of time. Apply this theory to the following example: We go into a bakery and each buy a croissant. I am typically not able to buy a smaller pastry of the same exact variety to account for my smaller calorie allotment, so our croissants are about the same size. You eat that croissant and have consumed 10%? of your calories for the day. If I do this, i'll be consuming 20% of my calories. Now I have to decide between cutting that croissant in half and staring at you hangrily with resentment as you eat yours (which I believe is the feeling that the OP was attempting to convey), choosing another item, exercising more, or sacrificing the selections and portions of other meals for that day. People come in so many lovely shapes and sizes, but unfortunately portion sizes do not. A serving is a standard measurement which doesn't vary until we adjust it for our individual needs.
So while weight loss for a person of any size most definitely takes the same amount of effort and willpower, there is an extra dimension which an individual with a smaller caloric allotment must consider. And that can be stressful. I've never been significantly bigger, and will never be taller, so would never assume that this makes weight loss more difficult for short people. I would actually guess on a solid NO since, in the end, we are all aiming for a % loss overall. But when a pound is a pound, and you see someone lose 2lbs when you lose 1lb, after watching them eat almost twice as much as you, it can on occasion feelI like it's more difficult. Perception.
sincere apologies for the long-winded answer0 -
Comparing yourself to men when it comes to weight loss is just not good for the mindset. Need to compare yourself to other women within your weightclass. I can eat up to 2500 a day and can still lose weight, where as most women can only eat up to 1500, or even less, and they lose weight. If I try to eat less 1500 I would literally be starving myself.0
-
If you want my opinion...just shut up, woman. Both the men in your life have serious health issues that could kill them tomorrow. They are eating more bc they need to, and they are more active, relative to their past activity. It is extremely selfish of you to internalize it and make it about you. Both the men in your life are making great strides to live years longer. You have already done that. If you really want to be where they are at and do what they have to do on a daily basis, then overeat, meet them in the middle, and work out with them.
On a side note, this is an excellent bonding opportunity that not many kids get with their fathers. It is something they can say they got through together. I think it is spectacular that your husband is changing both his and your son's life forever.-3 -
kmsoucy457 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »But it's relative. A deficit is a deficit. A deficit puts your body under stress because you are eating less than you should to maintain. No matter what size you are, it's the same relative amount of food.
As a short woman who has never been more than a little overweight I beg to differ. I get 1200 calories per day (without exercise) to lose less than 1lb per week. I can easily house that in one meal at a restaurant or family gathering, especially if alcohol or other tasty beverages are involved. My solution is eating back exercise calories, otherwise I would be perpetually hungry. I also drink a LOT of water, as in I stop counting at 9-10 glasses; it helps!
So OP I feel your pain. It is very difficult not to compare and get jealous while sitting at the same table as your SO. Mine isn't exceptionally tall (5'9"), but is rather muscle-y and has an extremely active job, so has trouble eating enough to maintain his weight. I comfort myself with the fact that, while his woes may not be the same as mine, he still has his own
I think you missed the point...
Have I? I understand that lack of satiety is to be expected when eating at a deficit, for anyone of any size and proportional calorie allotment. The human body isn't designed to "want" to lose weight (an opinion based on my belief that we are still hardwired to the feast and famine cycles of our caveman days, again just my own opinion), so we shouldI feel some discomfort during weight loss (though not everyone does). That is the point you are making? If so a more than valid point. If not do correct me (I do not say that sarcastically).
But -stay with me here, i know i'm reaching- with small variation a short person has about the same size mouth as a tall person (or rather height makes a small enough difference in determining such a thing). We can take roughly the same size bite out of the same size food item, so given that we chew, swallow and continue to consume at the same rate, we will eat the same amount of food in the same amount of time. Apply this theory to the following example: We go into a bakery and each buy a croissant. I am typically not able to buy a smaller pastry of the same exact variety to account for my smaller calorie allotment, so our croissants are about the same size. You eat that croissant and have consumed 10%? of your calories for the day. If I do this, i'll be consuming 20% of my calories. Now I have to decide between cutting that croissant in half and staring at you hangrily with resentment as you eat yours (which I believe is the feeling that the OP was attempting to convey), choosing another item, exercising more, or sacrificing the selections and portions of other meals for that day. People come in so many lovely shapes and sizes, but unfortunately portion sizes do not. A serving is a standard measurement which doesn't vary until we adjust it for our individual needs.
So while weight loss for a person of any size most definitely takes the same amount of effort and willpower, there is an extra dimension which an individual with a smaller caloric allotment must consider. And that can be stressful. I've never been significantly bigger, and will never be taller, so would never assume that this makes weight loss more difficult for short people. I would actually guess on a solid NO since, in the end, we are all aiming for a % loss overall. But when a pound is a pound, and you see someone lose 2lbs when you lose 1lb, after watching them eat almost twice as much as you, it can on occasion feelI like it's more difficult. Perception.
sincere apologies for the long-winded answer
You may use up a greater % of your calories....but I probably would too because there's no way that one croissant is going to make me satisfied in the least.
So my wife and I go into a cafe...she gets a croissant and a coffee...I get a croissant with cheese and ham and a coffee...we've both used up about an equal % of our calories. She's satiated after having consumed her croisant...I wouldn't be...that's why I need the ham and cheese.
As stated..it's all relative.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »But it's relative. A deficit is a deficit. A deficit puts your body under stress because you are eating less than you should to maintain. No matter what size you are, it's the same relative amount of food.
As a short woman who has never been more than a little overweight I beg to differ. I get 1200 calories per day (without exercise) to lose less than 1lb per week. I can easily house that in one meal at a restaurant or family gathering, especially if alcohol or other tasty beverages are involved. My solution is eating back exercise calories, otherwise I would be perpetually hungry. I also drink a LOT of water, as in I stop counting at 9-10 glasses; it helps!
So OP I feel your pain. It is very difficult not to compare and get jealous while sitting at the same table as your SO. Mine isn't exceptionally tall (5'9"), but is rather muscle-y and has an extremely active job, so has trouble eating enough to maintain his weight. I comfort myself with the fact that, while his woes may not be the same as mine, he still has his own
I think you missed the point...
Have I? I understand that lack of satiety is to be expected when eating at a deficit, for anyone of any size and proportional calorie allotment. The human body isn't designed to "want" to lose weight (an opinion based on my belief that we are still hardwired to the feast and famine cycles of our caveman days, again just my own opinion), so we shouldI feel some discomfort during weight loss (though not everyone does). That is the point you are making? If so a more than valid point. If not do correct me (I do not say that sarcastically).
But -stay with me here, i know i'm reaching- with small variation a short person has about the same size mouth as a tall person (or rather height makes a small enough difference in determining such a thing). We can take roughly the same size bite out of the same size food item, so given that we chew, swallow and continue to consume at the same rate, we will eat the same amount of food in the same amount of time. Apply this theory to the following example: We go into a bakery and each buy a croissant. I am typically not able to buy a smaller pastry of the same exact variety to account for my smaller calorie allotment, so our croissants are about the same size. You eat that croissant and have consumed 10%? of your calories for the day. If I do this, i'll be consuming 20% of my calories. Now I have to decide between cutting that croissant in half and staring at you hangrily with resentment as you eat yours (which I believe is the feeling that the OP was attempting to convey), choosing another item, exercising more, or sacrificing the selections and portions of other meals for that day. People come in so many lovely shapes and sizes, but unfortunately portion sizes do not. A serving is a standard measurement which doesn't vary until we adjust it for our individual needs.
So while weight loss for a person of any size most definitely takes the same amount of effort and willpower, there is an extra dimension which an individual with a smaller caloric allotment must consider. And that can be stressful. I've never been significantly bigger, and will never be taller, so would never assume that this makes weight loss more difficult for short people. I would actually guess on a solid NO since, in the end, we are all aiming for a % loss overall. But when a pound is a pound, and you see someone lose 2lbs when you lose 1lb, after watching them eat almost twice as much as you, it can on occasion feelI like it's more difficult. Perception.
sincere apologies for the long-winded answer
You may use up a greater % of your calories....but I probably would too because there's no way that one croissant is going to make me satisfied in the least.
So my wife and I go into a cafe...she gets a croissant and a coffee...I get a croissant with cheese and ham and a coffee...we've both used up about an equal % of our calories. She's satiated after having consumed her croisant...I wouldn't be...that's why I need the ham and cheese.
As stated..it's all relative.
Suzy Orman would agree with you, as do I. But my breakfast is about 1000 calories on the average, so yeah. I dont nibble when it comes to food.0 -
Actually I am more annoyed by the fact that my husband could lose the 20-25lbs he needs to just by cutting back to around 2200 a day for a few months, but chooses not to. 2200 is a good amount of food and his maintenance at goal would be around 2700. Somehow that is just too hard for some reason.
0 -
Despite eating small nutrient dense, low calorie meals, watching my macros, etc, , I am often still hungry. I have pretty good self-control and try to stave off nightime hunger by drinking a cup of flavored tea at night before bed, but when I wake up in the morning, I have to eat right away or I'm about ready to pass out.
Low calorie meals are not satiating. If you are about to pass out if you dont eat in the morning....you really need to evaluate your eating patterns.
If you are at your ideal weight, you will have to fight your body to lose more. I dont know your figures, so this is just educated guessing, but I'd say you need to eat more. If you have to drink tea to "stave off...hunger" then something is wrong.
Im going to take a wild guess and say you don't sleep well at night.0 -
On the positive side, it takes less food/fuel for me to exist and be healthy than a larger person with a similar activity level. I can eat between 1200 and 1500 calories and be pretty satisfied and they can't. It isn't their fault. They were born to be bigger than me. I try not to make them feel bad about it.
If you are feeling hungry most days, check that your calorie goal is not too agressively low or your activity level is wrong. Eat some of your exercise calories. Try to eat more protein, fats and fiber.0 -
CrabNebula wrote: »Actually I am more annoyed by the fact that my husband could lose the 20-25lbs he needs to just by cutting back to around 2200 a day for a few months, but chooses not to. 2200 is a good amount of food and his maintenance at goal would be around 2700. Somehow that is just too hard for some reason.
It's a good amount of food for you...that is the entire point. You all are acting like because 2200 or 2300 would be a good amount of food for you that we would be equally satisfied. Believe me...when you eat 3000 calories per day to maintain weight, you feel it big time when you'r ONLY eating 2200 or 2300 or even 2500.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Despite eating small nutrient dense, low calorie meals, watching my macros, etc, , I am often still hungry. I have pretty good self-control and try to stave off nightime hunger by drinking a cup of flavored tea at night before bed, but when I wake up in the morning, I have to eat right away or I'm about ready to pass out.
Low calorie meals are not satiating. If you are about to pass out if you dont eat in the morning....you really need to evaluate your eating patterns.
If you are at your ideal weight, you will have to fight your body to lose more. I dont know your figures, so this is just educated guessing, but I'd say you need to eat more. If you have to drink tea to "stave off...hunger" then something is wrong.
Im going to take a wild guess and say you don't sleep well at night.
Actually, I sleep like a log. I have trouble staying up past 10 and often have tea to stay up late to correct papers but keep from munching.
By the way, I liked your comment about the father-son bonding. This is the first time these guys have decided to lose of their own volition, without my nagging. And yes, I do support them in their journey.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »But it's relative. A deficit is a deficit. A deficit puts your body under stress because you are eating less than you should to maintain. No matter what size you are, it's the same relative amount of food.
As a short woman who has never been more than a little overweight I beg to differ. I get 1200 calories per day (without exercise) to lose less than 1lb per week. I can easily house that in one meal at a restaurant or family gathering, especially if alcohol or other tasty beverages are involved. My solution is eating back exercise calories, otherwise I would be perpetually hungry. I also drink a LOT of water, as in I stop counting at 9-10 glasses; it helps!
So OP I feel your pain. It is very difficult not to compare and get jealous while sitting at the same table as your SO. Mine isn't exceptionally tall (5'9"), but is rather muscle-y and has an extremely active job, so has trouble eating enough to maintain his weight. I comfort myself with the fact that, while his woes may not be the same as mine, he still has his own
I think you missed the point...
Have I? I understand that lack of satiety is to be expected when eating at a deficit, for anyone of any size and proportional calorie allotment. The human body isn't designed to "want" to lose weight (an opinion based on my belief that we are still hardwired to the feast and famine cycles of our caveman days, again just my own opinion), so we shouldI feel some discomfort during weight loss (though not everyone does). That is the point you are making? If so a more than valid point. If not do correct me (I do not say that sarcastically).
But -stay with me here, i know i'm reaching- with small variation a short person has about the same size mouth as a tall person (or rather height makes a small enough difference in determining such a thing). We can take roughly the same size bite out of the same size food item, so given that we chew, swallow and continue to consume at the same rate, we will eat the same amount of food in the same amount of time. Apply this theory to the following example: We go into a bakery and each buy a croissant. I am typically not able to buy a smaller pastry of the same exact variety to account for my smaller calorie allotment, so our croissants are about the same size. You eat that croissant and have consumed 10%? of your calories for the day. If I do this, i'll be consuming 20% of my calories. Now I have to decide between cutting that croissant in half and staring at you hangrily with resentment as you eat yours (which I believe is the feeling that the OP was attempting to convey), choosing another item, exercising more, or sacrificing the selections and portions of other meals for that day. People come in so many lovely shapes and sizes, but unfortunately portion sizes do not. A serving is a standard measurement which doesn't vary until we adjust it for our individual needs.
So while weight loss for a person of any size most definitely takes the same amount of effort and willpower, there is an extra dimension which an individual with a smaller caloric allotment must consider. And that can be stressful. I've never been significantly bigger, and will never be taller, so would never assume that this makes weight loss more difficult for short people. I would actually guess on a solid NO since, in the end, we are all aiming for a % loss overall. But when a pound is a pound, and you see someone lose 2lbs when you lose 1lb, after watching them eat almost twice as much as you, it can on occasion feelI like it's more difficult. Perception.
sincere apologies for the long-winded answer
You may use up a greater % of your calories....but I probably would too because there's no way that one croissant is going to make me satisfied in the least.
So my wife and I go into a cafe...she gets a croissant and a coffee...I get a croissant with cheese and ham and a coffee...we've both used up about an equal % of our calories. She's satiated after having consumed her croisant...I wouldn't be...that's why I need the ham and cheese.
As stated..it's all relative.
Then I would be jealous because you get ham and cheese and I don't, just as I would feel jealous if you got to take more bites of something than I did. Adding more/different food to the scenario doesn't change the outcome. Like your wife, I would also be satisfied by a croissant and coffee, but it wouldn't stop me from wanting more food, or equal the food of my dining compatriot (read: most Americans at Thanksgiving). No science behind that, I'm afraid
As I implied, you make perfect sense from a factual, logical standpoint. Which ought to be the basis for all determinations. Props. I am adding the dimension of what it can FEEL like, which cannot be quantified, only qualified.
I'm not trying to argue with you, especially since we agree on all of the facts, but this is a very clear complaint among people with smaller caloric allotments. I was merely attempting to reason out the feeling behind the perceived injustice so that you would be able to empathize. I neither suggest or endorse sympathy for what is admittedly jealousy; I'm not saying that I am right in feeling the way I do, merely that it is indeed a very real feeling, and one which many in my boat seem to share. Your original comment just seemed to dismiss that 'human element', which is why I quoted it and added my 2cents.0 -
Hate is such a strong word, but thanks? lol0
-
On the positive side, it takes less food/fuel for me to exist and be healthy than a larger person with a similar activity level. I can eat between 1200 and 1500 calories and be pretty satisfied and they can't. It isn't their fault. They were born to be bigger than me. I try not to make them feel bad about it.
That is a lovely silver lining. I mentioned that my SO has trouble eating enough food to maintain his weight, let alone gain as is his goal. And sometimes I actually feel encouraged towards my personal goal when I see that the food on my plate is going to fill me up, when double that amount on his plate probably won't quite do the trick for him. Also I imagine it gets tedious HAVING to eat so much food ALL of the time.0 -
I'm not a man. And I'm not tall. I get to eat 2300 a day before exercise and 3000 some days ,after fitbit adjustment, because of exercise. And I'm loosing weight. That is just what you get when you have a high activity level and a lot of weight to loose.
I do understand your frustration but I don't think it is men you need to be blaming for your suffering.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »CrabNebula wrote: »Actually I am more annoyed by the fact that my husband could lose the 20-25lbs he needs to just by cutting back to around 2200 a day for a few months, but chooses not to. 2200 is a good amount of food and his maintenance at goal would be around 2700. Somehow that is just too hard for some reason.
It's a good amount of food for you...that is the entire point. You all are acting like because 2200 or 2300 would be a good amount of food for you that we would be equally satisfied. Believe me...when you eat 3000 calories per day to maintain weight, you feel it big time when you'r ONLY eating 2200 or 2300 or even 2500.
I used to eat that much to maintain my own weight...when I was massively obese. And yeah, it sucked incredibly to drop from eating 2500-3000 cals a day to 1600-1700 to start, but it is what I had to do to lose the weight. My husband doesn't even have to make as drastic of a drop as I did at all, but he won't.
0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »kmsoucy457 wrote: »GuitarJerry wrote: »But it's relative. A deficit is a deficit. A deficit puts your body under stress because you are eating less than you should to maintain. No matter what size you are, it's the same relative amount of food.
As a short woman who has never been more than a little overweight I beg to differ. I get 1200 calories per day (without exercise) to lose less than 1lb per week. I can easily house that in one meal at a restaurant or family gathering, especially if alcohol or other tasty beverages are involved. My solution is eating back exercise calories, otherwise I would be perpetually hungry. I also drink a LOT of water, as in I stop counting at 9-10 glasses; it helps!
So OP I feel your pain. It is very difficult not to compare and get jealous while sitting at the same table as your SO. Mine isn't exceptionally tall (5'9"), but is rather muscle-y and has an extremely active job, so has trouble eating enough to maintain his weight. I comfort myself with the fact that, while his woes may not be the same as mine, he still has his own
I think you missed the point...
Have I? I understand that lack of satiety is to be expected when eating at a deficit, for anyone of any size and proportional calorie allotment. The human body isn't designed to "want" to lose weight (an opinion based on my belief that we are still hardwired to the feast and famine cycles of our caveman days, again just my own opinion), so we shouldI feel some discomfort during weight loss (though not everyone does). That is the point you are making? If so a more than valid point. If not do correct me (I do not say that sarcastically).
But -stay with me here, i know i'm reaching- with small variation a short person has about the same size mouth as a tall person (or rather height makes a small enough difference in determining such a thing). We can take roughly the same size bite out of the same size food item, so given that we chew, swallow and continue to consume at the same rate, we will eat the same amount of food in the same amount of time. Apply this theory to the following example: We go into a bakery and each buy a croissant. I am typically not able to buy a smaller pastry of the same exact variety to account for my smaller calorie allotment, so our croissants are about the same size. You eat that croissant and have consumed 10%? of your calories for the day. If I do this, i'll be consuming 20% of my calories. Now I have to decide between cutting that croissant in half and staring at you hangrily with resentment as you eat yours (which I believe is the feeling that the OP was attempting to convey), choosing another item, exercising more, or sacrificing the selections and portions of other meals for that day. People come in so many lovely shapes and sizes, but unfortunately portion sizes do not. A serving is a standard measurement which doesn't vary until we adjust it for our individual needs.
So while weight loss for a person of any size most definitely takes the same amount of effort and willpower, there is an extra dimension which an individual with a smaller caloric allotment must consider. And that can be stressful. I've never been significantly bigger, and will never be taller, so would never assume that this makes weight loss more difficult for short people. I would actually guess on a solid NO since, in the end, we are all aiming for a % loss overall. But when a pound is a pound, and you see someone lose 2lbs when you lose 1lb, after watching them eat almost twice as much as you, it can on occasion feelI like it's more difficult. Perception.
sincere apologies for the long-winded answer
You may use up a greater % of your calories....but I probably would too because there's no way that one croissant is going to make me satisfied in the least.
So my wife and I go into a cafe...she gets a croissant and a coffee...I get a croissant with cheese and ham and a coffee...we've both used up about an equal % of our calories. She's satiated after having consumed her croisant...I wouldn't be...that's why I need the ham and cheese.
As stated..it's all relative.
Then I would be jealous because you get ham and cheese and I don't, just as I would feel jealous if you got to take more bites of something than I did. Adding more/different food to the scenario doesn't change the outcome. Like your wife, I would also be satisfied by a croissant and coffee, but it wouldn't stop me from wanting more food, or equal the food of my dining compatriot (read: most Americans at Thanksgiving). No science behind that, I'm afraid
As I implied, you make perfect sense from a factual, logical standpoint. Which ought to be the basis for all determinations. Props. I am adding the dimension of what it can FEEL like, which cannot be quantified, only qualified.
I'm not trying to argue with you, especially since we agree on all of the facts, but this is a very clear complaint among people with smaller caloric allotments. I was merely attempting to reason out the feeling behind the perceived injustice so that you would be able to empathize. I neither suggest or endorse sympathy for what is admittedly jealousy; I'm not saying that I am right in feeling the way I do, merely that it is indeed a very real feeling, and one which many in my boat seem to share. Your original comment just seemed to dismiss that 'human element', which is why I quoted it and added my 2cents.
I work with a guy that makes the same argument. The problem is is that you are arguing with emotion about what's fair and what you want. I am making a statement about your body needs are concerning nutritional requirements, not your wants. If you take out emotion, I'm right. If you want to pretend that your nutritional requirements are the same as a man, but you can't or you'll gain, then go on living the lie. All said in a friendly banter kind of way. Not meaning to be harsh.
I am not arguing; note the part where i said that. I also readily admitted that feeling this way was neither logical nor correct, and stated and that i agree with cwolfman entirely. I understand different bodies need different things/ bigger bodies need more things. I also know how cico works. I am neither delusional nor in denial.
Unfortunately just because a feeling is wrong does not mean it does not exist. The world would be a much happier and more Zen place if that were true. I felt the need to point out that the OP is not alone in her thinking. And then i had to open this can of worms and attempt to explain why i (and presumable she) feels that way.
I promise, don't walk around resenting every tall man eating a pizza B-) But there may be some moments during some days where my brain just does not function logically, and i give in to that green monster and preschool math: "well he had 2 and i had 1 but he lost 2lbs and i lost 1lb it's not faaaaaaair"
And no worries, i too enjoy a good debate.0
Love it. 
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions