Short people get the shaft
StarvingAuthor
Posts: 67 Member
It seems like short people are always complaining that we get the 'short' end of the stick with low calorie requirements (my BMR is like...1200 or something). Tall people on the other hand are blessed with TDEEs of 2,000+! Jerks!
But! I wonder:
Do short people actually get less hungry than tall people? Do tall people feel like their 2000+ calories are insufficient unless properly nutritionally mapped out? Are short people not really considering that tall people are hungrier than us and at the end of the day it all balances out and puts us in the same boat?
HMMM......
ETA: OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!
But! I wonder:
Do short people actually get less hungry than tall people? Do tall people feel like their 2000+ calories are insufficient unless properly nutritionally mapped out? Are short people not really considering that tall people are hungrier than us and at the end of the day it all balances out and puts us in the same boat?
HMMM......
ETA: OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!
6
Replies
-
You don't have to be very tall to have a TDEE of 2000.
4 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm tall and don't have a tdee of 2000+. My bmr is 1316 and I'm 5'8 and sedentary due to health issues.4
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfyS-S-IJs
Hunger is like pain. It's subjective. What an altitudinally challenged individual feels from their bodily hunger cues uses the same hormones and bodily organs as all other people have. I doubt that 'hunger' means different things to short and tall people, but I'm certain that if it does, there's no quantitative way to measure it.9 -
Well, smaller people have smaller energy requirements. So theoretically, it should be like for like.
And hunger and the reasons for it vary as wildly as peoples TDEEs.6 -
I'm 5' 8" and maintain on about 1700 calories (middle age).
That being said, 1700 seems like a LOT if you can only have 1200, so I feel for you.7 -
-
I'm not tall and would sustain maintenance at around 2600 calories dependent on my activity.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!6
-
We all have it worst. That goes for each and every one of us.
But it's not just about lack of empathy, I think it's also a lack of logical thinking and understanding simple maths, like percentages.4 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!
Actually no. You are 5'4 and bmr 1200s (I did the calculation and it's 1272)
and I'm 5'8 bmr 1316. I wouldn't say yours is much less than mine.7 -
singingflutelady wrote: »StarvingAuthor wrote: »OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!
Actually no. You are 5'4 and bmr 1200s (I did the calculation and it's 1272)
and I'm 5'8 bmr 1316. I wouldn't say yours is much less than mine.
Hmm, interesting. So it isn't actually short people who have it hard, its all equal as I assumed in my OP. At least I know I am justified in cringing at posts looking only for short women.
1 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »StarvingAuthor wrote: »OK, for everyone listing their TDEE/BMR, cool, just replace the 2000+ with your number and assume that shorter people of equal activity levels are much less. :-) The question still stands, and is interesting!
Actually no. You are 5'4 and bmr 1200s (I did the calculation and it's 1272)
and I'm 5'8 bmr 1316. I wouldn't say yours is much less than mine.
Hmm, interesting. So it isn't actually short people who have it hard, its all equal as I assumed in my OP. At least I know I am justified in cringing at posts looking only for short women.
It's dependent on weight so yes short people usually weight less than tall people but not always.1 -
At 5'3" I lose a few ounces a week when I average 1200 calories a day (before exercise), because I'm sedentary otherwise. I don't believe I was ever any less hungry than anyone who could eat a lot more than me to lose the same amount. I do think I'm less hungry than those with any calorie allowance who have a goal of losing faster since there's a bigger gap between CI and CO.0
-
You could also say that you get to save money on food...12
-
-
My TDEE like 29 and change and I'm 6'01
-
-
Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.5 -
I've seen some online calorie calculators that take height into account. As an example, suppose one person is 5'8" 140 lbs and the other is 5'3 140 lbs. The taller one would have a higher metabolism according to the calculator. I've often wondered whether that it is really true.4
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »I've seen some online calorie calculators that take height into account. As an example, suppose one person is 5'8" 140 lbs and the other is 5'3 140 lbs. The taller one would have a higher metabolism according to the calculator. I've often wondered whether that it is really true.
Someone 5'8 and 140 would on average have a higher lean mass (lower body fat) than someone 5'3 and 140, although to the extent you know real LBM that's more useful (and why the calculator that relies on BF% (Katch McArdle) doesn't need height for its estimate.
BMR isn't much affected by added fat, just added LBM, and someone 5'3 and 140 wouldn't necessarily have much more LBM than someone 5'3 and 125 (125 being in about the middle of the healthy weight range and 140 being at the top).
None of this affects GottaBurnEm's point, which is that BMR doesn't matter, TDEE does. At 5'3, 125, my TDEE ranges a LOT depending on what I do. If I'm completely sedentary, it's around 1550, and if I'm active it can be around 2200 or even more if I wanted to be even more active.4 -
THIS. YOU create your TDEE. You want to consume more, then you need to burn more.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
I have 3 boys going into the teen , growth spurt years.... I miss those smaller portion days.
2 -
THIS. YOU create your TDEE. You want to consume more, then you need to burn more.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That's weird because whenever anyone asks what kind of exercise burns calories, they're always told to exercise for fitness not for food.15 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
THIS. YOU create your TDEE. You want to consume more, then you need to burn more.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Your BMR is meaningless.
TDEE is where it's at, and unless you have health issues, that is entirely within your control.
I'm old and short and my TDEE is around 2000-2200.
Saying that, I'm perfectly content on around 1800 calories of food, which is around my goal weight maintenance on a bit less exercise than I'm currently doing.
Smaller bodies need less energy to fuel them in much the same way smaller cars need less gas to fuel them.
I never have seen the point in comparing food intake with other people. My husband is a foot taller than me. It would stand to reason that he should eat more food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That's weird because whenever anyone asks what kind of exercise burns calories, they're always told to exercise for fitness not for food.
Really? I'm not sure I pay much attention to others but I usually say cardio for heart, lungs and more food, strength for muscle retention and deficit for weight loss. So move more eat more.
I feel like that's what others say but also say not to use exercise as punishment for overeating.
Maybe my observations are wrong.3 -
Im sorry if this sounds stupid... but I new to reading the boards. What is TDEE/BMR? Thanks
2 -
Im sorry if this sounds stupid... but I new to reading the boards. What is TDEE/BMR? Thanks
TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure. It's all of the calories you burn each day through existing, digestion, purposeful movement (exercise) and non-exercise activity.
BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate. Basically, this is the amount of calories required to keep your body functioning at a very base rate, like if you were in a coma.3 -
Understood.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've seen some online calorie calculators that take height into account. As an example, suppose one person is 5'8" 140 lbs and the other is 5'3 140 lbs. The taller one would have a higher metabolism according to the calculator. I've often wondered whether that it is really true.
Someone 5'8 and 140 would on average have a higher lean mass (lower body fat) than someone 5'3 and 140, although to the extent you know real LBM that's more useful (and why the calculator that relies on BF% (Katch McArdle) doesn't need height for its estimate.
BMR isn't much affected by added fat, just added LBM, and someone 5'3 and 140 wouldn't necessarily have much more LBM than someone 5'3 and 125 (125 being in about the middle of the healthy weight range and 140 being at the top).
None of this affects GottaBurnEm's point, which is that BMR doesn't matter, TDEE does. At 5'3, 125, my TDEE ranges a LOT depending on what I do. If I'm completely sedentary, it's around 1550, and if I'm active it can be around 2200 or even more if I wanted to be even more active.
What I was more so wondering is whether there would be a difference in BMR with bone vs muscle. Meaning, two people that weigh the same and have the same amount of body fat, but one being taller than the other. So in this case, the taller person would have more bone but less muscle.
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Understood.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've seen some online calorie calculators that take height into account. As an example, suppose one person is 5'8" 140 lbs and the other is 5'3 140 lbs. The taller one would have a higher metabolism according to the calculator. I've often wondered whether that it is really true.
Someone 5'8 and 140 would on average have a higher lean mass (lower body fat) than someone 5'3 and 140, although to the extent you know real LBM that's more useful (and why the calculator that relies on BF% (Katch McArdle) doesn't need height for its estimate.
BMR isn't much affected by added fat, just added LBM, and someone 5'3 and 140 wouldn't necessarily have much more LBM than someone 5'3 and 125 (125 being in about the middle of the healthy weight range and 140 being at the top).
None of this affects GottaBurnEm's point, which is that BMR doesn't matter, TDEE does. At 5'3, 125, my TDEE ranges a LOT depending on what I do. If I'm completely sedentary, it's around 1550, and if I'm active it can be around 2200 or even more if I wanted to be even more active.
What I was more so wondering is whether there would be a difference in BMR with bone vs muscle. Meaning, two people that weigh the same and have the same amount of body fat, but one being taller than the other. So in this case, the taller person would have more bone but less muscle.
The point is that BMR doesn't really matter. TDEE is what matters.0 -
I know. That's just been a curiosity of mine for a while.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Understood.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I've seen some online calorie calculators that take height into account. As an example, suppose one person is 5'8" 140 lbs and the other is 5'3 140 lbs. The taller one would have a higher metabolism according to the calculator. I've often wondered whether that it is really true.
Someone 5'8 and 140 would on average have a higher lean mass (lower body fat) than someone 5'3 and 140, although to the extent you know real LBM that's more useful (and why the calculator that relies on BF% (Katch McArdle) doesn't need height for its estimate.
BMR isn't much affected by added fat, just added LBM, and someone 5'3 and 140 wouldn't necessarily have much more LBM than someone 5'3 and 125 (125 being in about the middle of the healthy weight range and 140 being at the top).
None of this affects GottaBurnEm's point, which is that BMR doesn't matter, TDEE does. At 5'3, 125, my TDEE ranges a LOT depending on what I do. If I'm completely sedentary, it's around 1550, and if I'm active it can be around 2200 or even more if I wanted to be even more active.
What I was more so wondering is whether there would be a difference in BMR with bone vs muscle. Meaning, two people that weigh the same and have the same amount of body fat, but one being taller than the other. So in this case, the taller person would have more bone but less muscle.
The point is that BMR doesn't really matter. TDEE is what matters.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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