Short people get the shaft
Options
Replies
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions