Short people get the shaft
Replies
-
I have 3 boys going into the teen , growth spurt years.... I miss those smaller portion days.
Good God, your grocery bill must be daunting! It was pretty high when I had two teenage girls!2 -
But all exercise burns EXTRA calories versus just BMR and NEAT. Eating less than one's TDEE will result in weight loss. One STILL gets to choose what their TDEE can be with extra physical activity.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.
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 -
TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). Your total calories burned in a day which includes BMR.Im sorry if this sounds stupid... but I new to reading the boards. What is TDEE/BMR? Thanks
BMR (basal metabolic rate). Calories you burn at rest doing NOTHING. You can literally just sit on the couch for 24 hours and burn over 1,000 calories through life sustaining body function.
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 -
I have 3 boys going into the teen , growth spurt years.... I miss those smaller portion days.
Good God, your grocery bill must be daunting! It was pretty high when I had two teenage girls!
Even my youngest out eats me. He's 10, about 5', 85 lbs and today he ate 2 burgers, salad and a potato for dinner. He was asking for more one hour later. The kid has a six pack he is so skinny. I don't know where they put the food...6 -
I hear this complaint a lot from shorter folks and I always feel that calorie amounts can be a bit misleading if that's all you're looking at. Sure, it is easier to work in social situations with more calories available for the day. However, being 6' I can tell you a 1,000 calorie deficit still feels like a 1,000 calorie deficit.
I'm not sure about how hungry people feel based on height. Ultimately it comes down to energy in vs energy out. I think anyone on a significant cut is going to feel some effect on their hunger without modifications to timing, volume, etc.
Obviously being 6' my body will require a higher baseline of calories to fuel my basic functions/moving around than a 5'4" woman. I do take issue with people complaining that tall people have more calories to work with while cutting as if that makes it an easier experience hunger/energy wise.12 -
And coming from the short, 5'1, light, maintain at 100-105lbs, and old 64 in 6 days., side of things.....
My BMR is ~975, depends on the calculator.
My NEAT according to MFP sedentary is 1200, other calculators have it in the 1100+, but that is sedentary almost comatose but reading a book and the odd pee break.
My TDEE is actually close to 1600. I no longer count calories on anything like a consistent basis. TDEE includes SSIT, lifting, and yoga. Purposful exercise 60 min 5-6 data a week, plus moving more during the day ( upping my NEAT)
It is harder for a woman of shorter stature, within a normal weight range, to lose weight because a person with the normal, but high BMI (using 5'1) of 130 lbs (as opposed to the low normal of 98lbs) is already close to the minimum intake of 1200 cals, sedentary maintenance. And yes even a shorter woman needs those cals. ( exception being maybe under 4'11)
As to the 'fairness' of calorie allowance, my SO is male, 6'3-4" and 205lbs. His meals are so large I couldn't imagine eating them, and wouldn't enjoy the discomfort I would get if I did. (I do share the same meals only portioned to my size)
I do realize everyone is different, especially a short woman who has been in the overweight or obese range and is trying to come to terms with an appropriate calorie allowance.
I don't feel short changed in the amount of food I get to eat because aroma, taste, flavour, quality, and texture are more important to me than quantity, and I get all of that.
Your post is confusing as you compare a short BMR with an average TDEE- two very different things.
Cheers, h.9 -
On the flip side, pants. Yes, it sucks when they're too long, but hemming is a possibility. When they're too SHORT? You can't let out material that isn't there.11
-
I don't think someone's height has anything to do with their level of hunger.
2 -
lalepepper wrote: »I hear this complaint a lot from shorter folks and I always feel that calorie amounts can be a bit misleading if that's all you're looking at. Sure, it is easier to work in social situations with more calories available for the day. However, being 6' I can tell you a 1,000 calorie deficit still feels like a 1,000 calorie deficit.
I'm not sure about how hungry people feel based on height. Ultimately it comes down to energy in vs energy out. I think anyone on a significant cut is going to feel some effect on their hunger without modifications to timing, volume, etc.
Obviously being 6' my body will require a higher baseline of calories to fuel my basic functions/moving around than a 5'4" woman. I do take issue with people complaining that tall people have more calories to work with while cutting as if that makes it an easier experience hunger/energy wise.
As a 6'1 chica, I agree with all of this.
Also the number of kg/pounds lost for tall people to go from obese to a healthy weight is much higher. I mean, I had to lose a whole person to move from a BMI of 45.5 (352lb/160kg) to overweight (219/99kg), whereas a person at 5'1 with the same BMI stats would be dropping from 238lb/108kg to 153lb/69kg. I'm not saying its easier for my shorter compatriots at all, but we have to lose a lot more to get the same results. I see the extra calories we have as our help to lose the additional kg's.3 -
lalepepper wrote: »I hear this complaint a lot from shorter folks and I always feel that calorie amounts can be a bit misleading if that's all you're looking at. Sure, it is easier to work in social situations with more calories available for the day. However, being 6' I can tell you a 1,000 calorie deficit still feels like a 1,000 calorie deficit.
I'm not sure about how hungry people feel based on height. Ultimately it comes down to energy in vs energy out. I think anyone on a significant cut is going to feel some effect on their hunger without modifications to timing, volume, etc.
Obviously being 6' my body will require a higher baseline of calories to fuel my basic functions/moving around than a 5'4" woman. I do take issue with people complaining that tall people have more calories to work with while cutting as if that makes it an easier experience hunger/energy wise.
Agreed... I'm 5'10" and I'm probably as hungry as a 5' women if i eat 1500 and her 1200.3 -
Tall people eat more calories because they need/burn more.
The end.
I don't understand why would someone concern themselves with things like that. Work with what you got.6 -
This is an interesting question, and one I've thought abput myself before. Obviously a short person only needs as many calories as they burn, and so it's logical that they would be satiated more easily. However, I think this ignores the cultural aspects of appetite. We've all wondered in the past why we struggle to lose weight when it really seems like we don't eat that much. But our perception of what a normal portion should be was completely skewed by our culture of large portion sizes. No restaurant provides separate portion sizes for women, or for short people, and any restaurant that tried to bring it in would go out of business pretty quickly, I think! If you spend more than a few days eating well over your TDEE your appetite appears to increase in response, even though you clearly don't need it. Clearly, our appetite is not necessarily dictated by what we actually need to survive. If you couple this problem with a cultural preference for calorie-dense foods,and social environments that tend to centre around food and/or drink (the obesogenic environment argument) it's not hard to see why short people may feel as though they are at a disadvantage!8
-
5'3", female, 148 = my BMR is 1460 and I maintain on 2500ish2
-
I guess you could test it by looking at BMI across the population? So if short people's BMIs tend to be higher (whether underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese, whatever), you could assume that they felt hungry on a proportionally higher calorie allowance than tall people.
So for example, if 5'3 people consistently ate an average of 1500 calories a day because that was what kept them satisfied, they would end up with a higher BMI than if 1500 calories also kept people who were 6'2 satisfied.
I think that makes sense but I am in no way a scientist!2 -
huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight0
-
deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling 4 -
maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
I think you've conflated BMI with BMR.2 -
I totally get what you're asking and have wondered that myself.
I have no idea how one would actually answer that question, though, with everyone being so different and so subjective.2 -
maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
I think you are suggesting looking at whether short people are more likely to be overweight.
For me I feel like it would be easier if I had more calories (I have a decent number when really active and find that easier than when I have a small number because I'm sedentary, and in theory the added exercise should drive up how much I need). That is because it's just hard to eat only 1600 (for example) calories in a day, or less if I were sedentary and trying to lose. It requires that one be careful and do almost no mindless eating. When I have more calories it seems easier because there's just more wiggle room when something tempting is available.
But this is from the perspective of someone who never really found hunger the reason she overate, but simply the enjoyment of food or the bad habit of mindless eating. I also had to break myself of thinking that the right amount was the amount others were eating (even if they were larger). (Old dumb habit, I recall in college thinking I could go one to one on drinks with a male friend who was 6'5 when I was 5'3, 120.)
I don't feel like it's HARDER being short, though, and I am very conscious of how much I can control my TDEE.4 -
I don't think the issue is one of extra hunger, in all likelihood the same deficit on a tall vs short person will yield comparable levels of hunger.
Someone up thread hit the nail on the head I think when they mentioned the issue was a social one. We all like meals out, to eat a piece of cake at a party or eat a takeaway watching Netflix after a long week at work. The more calorie dense foods are a lot more difficult to work into your diet when your daily limit can be exceeded (easily) in a single meal.
If your 500 calorie deficit allows you 2500 calories a day you are going to find these occasions much easier to manage than if it only allows you 1500 calories a day. As is frequently stated on these boards, you can't out exercise your diet, there is only so much you can do to earn extra calories before you're just punishing yourself.
Even day to day the fact is more often than not a taller person can have a bigger piece of cheese, eat a steak instead of chicken, have an extra biscuit (cookie) with their tea, to a smaller person looking on it will seem like taller people have it easier.10 -
Read The Hungry Brain by Stephan Guyenet, and all will be answered. Basically, the problem is hedonic eating. When eating for pleasure and/or coping is the rule of the day (as it is now) all of the body's homeostatic failsafes are screwed, because they are easily overriden.
Just about everyone has experienced this at least once. The most common example given: you're full from dinner, but more than likely have a "second stomach" all ready to go for dessert.9 -
maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
Pretty much. The biggest differences seen in "metabolism" are NEAT related. Iirc, we've seen many examples of differences upward of 2500 kcal/day, just from NEAT variances. BMR differences pale in comparison.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »maryjaquiss wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »huh - that makes no sense - BMI is a simple height/mass ratio and has nothing to do with calories consumed, unless it is making them gain weight
I'm probably not explaining my brain vomit very well... Everyone has a BMI, if you eat more calories, you will have a higher BMI. With the appropriate number of calories you should be able to maintain any BMI that doesn't kill you. However, the number of calories that would work for you from a psychological/satiety point of view might differ (the hungriness aspect). So if, in general, shorter people are only satisfied with the same number of calories as taller people, they would tend to have a higher BMI overall, as they would maintain a similar weight to those on a higher number of calories.
I think it's time for me to stop rambling
yeah - I think you are conflating BMI (body mass index) with BMR (basal metabolic rate) - and even then, if you look at longitudinal type studies - BMR isn't as variable as people seem to believe
No, she means BMI.
She's suggesting that if short people on average have a higher BMI (are more likely to be overweight or to be more overweight), then that suggests that the hunger thing doesn't just even out.
I don't think that would tell us, really, because I don't actually think it's true hunger that drives overeating (see Gallowmere's post, for one explanation, or my prior one or the one about social situations), but it is one interesting idea for a comparison.6 -
I dunno, I think it's entirely possible that short people might be more likely to be overweight, but perhaps not for the reasons we've been talking about. Most women judge their size by clothing size, but if you're a short woman you could very easily be overweight at a UK size 10 (US size 6), although many people would be unaware of this fact just by the normalisation of larger sizes. Bring vanity sizing into the mix, and the effect would be even more marked.2
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »The most common example given: you're full from dinner, but more than likely have a "second stomach" all ready to go for dessert.
This is so me.... Every single night!
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
best comment ever!
---
and to the others:
Yes.. Unless I make poor choices I won't feel hungry on 1200-1400 net calories;... but ALL THE TASTY MORSELS everywhere!!!!
The other annoying thing is that exercise calorie burns are proportional to body weight, so short folks (at least when not fat) still get pretty screwed on TDEE. As in "You don't need to count calories. You run all the time" (some tall male). Yes, for a whopping grand total of ~74 calories/mile as per Garmin (sarcastic me).
6 -
It pretty much means no wiggle room for restaurants/potlucks/any snacks or treats/glass of wine/etc.. which is what makes it hard (rather than actual hunger). And it only takes a few pounds on a short frame to look really fat.
Someone above commented about envying us for having to lose less weight to drop a BMI point.. well, on the flip side, it took that tall person a hell of a lot more over-eating to get there in the first place.7 -
Woman, slightly under 5'2". I have to be under 1,000 to lose.4
-
Eating has become such a cultural and and social process as oppose to being strictly the means of acquiring energy and nutriment that I would agree; Short people get the short end of the stick on this one, and will be paying a HEAVIER price for a night out on the town.4
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
- 426 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