Short people get the shaft
Replies
-
i don't think its just a case of being short or tall, i'm 5 ft and cam have up to 1700 calories a day. lots of other factors must come into it, age, muscle mass,activity levels. maybe its what you eat,i find lots of protein keeps hunger at bay . depends on what your goal is too... lose weight or maintenance1
-
essexgirl1971 wrote: »i don't think its just a case of being short or tall, i'm 5 ft and cam have up to 1700 calories a day. lots of other factors must come into it, age, muscle mass,activity levels. maybe its what you eat,i find lots of protein keeps hunger at bay . depends on what your goal is too... lose weight or maintenance
It's so much more than being short or tall, I'm 5'2" and thanks to my activity level I need to eat an average of 3200 Calories to maintain at 148lb, in fact I probably need more as I've lost over 1.5lb over the last couple of weeks (hopefully it'll settle soon). I've lost 140lb eating around 2000-2500 Calories a day, as my weight has dropped, I've found myself becoming steadily more active, which means I can still eat a good amount. If I sat on my bum all day then I wouldn't be able to eat nearly as much, so how many Calories I get to eat is down to me rather than my lack of height.2 -
Yeah, Us shorties are majorly forked. Want a glass of wine once a week? Well then you can't have breakfast that day. A slice of cake on your birthday? That means no lunch since that is about ithe total calories I would allot to an entire lunch.
So we are forked but are we hungrier than our tall friends? No telling, but I doubt it. Not hungrier but short folks are much less satisfied eating within their calorie goals than taller folk, is my take on it.
I don't really drink, but last month I went out with some friends, had far more than the equivalent of a glass of wine and still lost weight without forgoing my breakfast. I have children so there are times when I'm forced to eat cake, still didn't mean I had to go without lunch to lose weight. It maybe that you are being a little too restrictive if you can't make room for a treat every now and again.4 -
Just to add to Ann,
I am 5'4. Awhile ago, I was 112lbs, doing a very light exercise program of squats, planks, situps; probably a 30 minute routine all in all, eating ~1400 calories or so a day.
I went through a move that was relatively strenuous, but not KILLER. I didn't have the ability to track my calories during this, but I'd guess I was around 2500+ calories per day; I really didn't care because I was trying to gain weight anyway and getting unpacked was more important to me.
I finally got my scale and weighed in at 104lbs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The move lasted about a week or two in all, I had hired help, and I was eating very, very generously (jars of honey, seriously). I know the movement wasn't enough to compensate for that dramatic loss considering I was eating well over my TDEE when I do heavy exercise programs faithfully (P90X).
Who knows what happened. Sometimes I wish I could emulate it...without the stress of a move! The bad news? I lost my TOM for about six months and struggled to get my weight up to a healthy range. My metabolism was just roaring for about two months.1 -
I'm confused by some of the previous posts because I'm 5'2 and a half (I round up to 5'3) sw 141.1 cw is 133.7, goal is 120 and previous pre-husband, pre-kid weight was 115-120.
MFP gives me 1200 calories to lose 1.5 a week at sedentary , and Fitbit says as long as I maintain a -750 calorie deficit I should be on track for that. I try to get my TDEE up to 2200 and eat between 1250-1400 calories. Granted getting my TDEE up to that point is more difficult as a few pounds leave and I may have to be satisfied with 2000 bit it gives me room for what I want. Even if I do have to make time to work for it
That all seems reasonable, except with so little to lose and being at a healthy weight already you might not want to aim for what is 1.5-2 lb per week. I did that into the healthy zone (eventually I stopped) and part of why is that I was concerned I was losing more muscle mass than necessary (I was weight training and continued getting stronger, but a DEXA showed I had lost some muscle mass).
In any case, not sure what you are confused about, so figured I'd ask.
(My numbers are pretty similar -- when I'm as active as I like I'm around 2200 TDEE, otherwise more like 2000, 125, 5'3 (or almost), goal 118 or so, although I've not been motivated to finish and been hanging out around 125 for a while.)2 -
I have to disagree. I'm 5'3, I do 1780 for maintenance which is only 20 cals less than my 5'11 counterpart. I have a glass of wine almost every night and NEVER skip a single meal. I think it's more that people are overestimating cals burnt from exercise and underestimating calories eaten. I do the opposite and it works for me. I do not think being short is a factor and if it is, it's definitely not as huge a factor as some are making it out to be.3
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm confused by some of the previous posts because I'm 5'2 and a half (I round up to 5'3) sw 141.1 cw is 133.7, goal is 120 and previous pre-husband, pre-kid weight was 115-120.
MFP gives me 1200 calories to lose 1.5 a week at sedentary , and Fitbit says as long as I maintain a -750 calorie deficit I should be on track for that. I try to get my TDEE up to 2200 and eat between 1250-1400 calories. Granted getting my TDEE up to that point is more difficult as a few pounds leave and I may have to be satisfied with 2000 bit it gives me room for what I want. Even if I do have to make time to work for it
That all seems reasonable, except with so little to lose and being at a healthy weight already you might not want to aim for what is 1.5-2 lb per week. I did that into the healthy zone (eventually I stopped) and part of why is that I was concerned I was losing more muscle mass than necessary (I was weight training and continued getting stronger, but a DEXA showed I had lost some muscle mass).
In any case, not sure what you are confused about, so figured I'd ask.
(My numbers are pretty similar -- when I'm as active as I like I'm around 2200 TDEE, otherwise more like 2000, 125, 5'3 (or almost), goal 118 or so, although I've not been motivated to finish and been hanging out around 125 for a while.)
I agree I did set a super aggressive goal and I know I will loose a bit of muscle but I'll dial it back to a slower pace in a couple weeks. Just needed a kick start of sorts1 -
It is HUGE factor. People who have maintenance cals around oh say above 2000k for example, could safely cut 500 calories. Someone five foot who is at maintenance around 1500-1600 cuts 500 and that's below 1200 and supposedly unsafe for any woman (no matter how tall). So we have to 1) I either work out more than taller people to cut the same amount of calories which is pointless because everyone says you still have to eat them back to stay at 1200 or 2) Just accept we can't lose it as quickly because we can't cut as many calories. Someone even with higher maintenance could cut even more aggressively reducing them to that 1200 marker (that still sticks no matter how tall someone is) and lead to even faster weight loss. No matter what we are held to that 1200 minimum and when your maintenance is so close to that already, weight loss takes much much longer.3
-
VintageFeline wrote: »She didn't retrain her TDEE, she increased her Total Daily Energy Requirements by becoming more incidentally active day to day.
It is pretty baffling that 5-10 hours of cardio and strength training still leaves you with 1200 gross to work with for such a small deficit but there we go.
It's also baffling that this be the case when you have previously lost significantly more in 6 month time frames. Were you eating dangerously low in order to achieve that?
Don't see why that is baffling. The calculators all seem to say less than 1200 a day to have 1 pd weight loss a week ON AVERAGE for someone my height who is sedentary apart from purposeful exercise. And tho these calculators always ask my age, I'm pretty sure they don't use it to get those numbers and I'm older.
On the 3 or 4 cardio days a week I eat more like 1400 (post workout snack) On the non cardio days it between 1100 and 1200. Cardio is at least 1 hour swimming and usually a aqua fit class. Maybe a short bike ride to and from gym. The calculators give an average, I guess I'm just at the 'kitten' end of the bell curve. I doubt I'm actually unusual, I see plenty of posts here - but the reception is usually so poor that I'm guessing others like me usually just keep our mouths shut.
I do lose on the 1200. I just seem to lose maybe 1/2 what the calculators predict. But, given such a small calorie base, one screw up on a nutrition label the allowed +-20% (that 350 cal frozen dinner is actually 420 for instance) and a piece of roast beef that was a tad more fatty than the USDA entry and bye bye deficit for the day. I also just checked and took 5 days off the diet in the 6 months. One restaurant meal can with desert and a glass of wine ( like we had on our anniversary) can eliminate more than a week deficit! when the calorie pool is so small. So given the vagaries of life I'm probably not far from what the calculators predict.
As to the other two diets, no I did pretty much the same as now 1200 to 1400 calories, but I was younger and had a walk, stand on train, walk again commute: thus 2 hours or more daily of activity without any purposeful exercise. I don't live in a city with public transportation anymore and I'm a couple of decades older. Things change.
I'm not complaining that I can't lose weight. I DO lose weight on 1200 calories. Painfully slowly, but steady.
But, no, I do not have 10% or more of my daily allotment of calories to treat myself with wine or cake or potato chips unless I resign myself to blowing the calorie limit that day or doing without a breakfast or lunch to compensate. It is what it is, it sucks but I'm just not going to be ashamed of it here on MFP because it is true.
I'm working to be healthy and fit and a normal weight and it sucks that I can't eat 2200 calories a day, but that is the way it is. All the theory or healthy and fit (and probably younger) people can scoff all they want. I know and live the reality.
And quite frankly someone who is eating actual maintenance calories which are almost more than double the weight loss calories I have telling me it is strange and that I should be able to have wine without forgoing breakfast is not helpful or supportive, imho. There is a world of difference between 2200 calories and 1200 calories and I'm not going to pretend there isn't.
(The dieting has taken its toll, btw. 1200 was too little for me to continue without huge mental health ramifications so I have switched to maintenance this month and probably a few more months. Will continue cardio and strength while I take this break. Loss of only 1/4 pound a week is a serious bummer and I needed a break.)
But back to topic: Short people have a smaller calorie base to work with so therefore any treat ( like a glass of wine) is a larger percentage of their calories and harder to fit in. That sucks and leaves ME ( a shortie) far less satisfied (appetite and taste wise) than my taller friends. But are short people more or less hungry? Doubtful imo.
Surely all that anger you're carrying around burns some calories ...
Any loss is still loss and that's a win when you're trying to lose weight.
I didn't take @WinoGelato 's post as anything but informative regarding what worked for her and the changes she made over time. You have control over your NEAT and TDEE, just like she does. Just like I do. I can prioritize being more active and understand it can come at a price. Maybe less time with friends or family or doing other fun stuff. But I still get to make that choice. And I have to live with the consequences.
12 -
Well, I'm barely 5'1 and I really do have a problem with the very low calories. Sure, I don't need so much to fuel my body, but the overall amount is so small, that there is no buffer to have something nice.
An example: If I want to have a nice medium pizza from Domino's, sure, I can have it, but that will be my budget for the entire day. But even if the calories are enough to fuel my body, I'm certainly not happy and sated all day.
Someone who can have 2000+ calories can still have breakfast and some coffee with milk and even some snack in between, while I can't even have that coffee.
So it's much harder to fit food into my budget. And I really have to think on several days, whether I can have a cappuccino with ~100cals or not. To have 3 decent meals, I really need to calculate and there are many days, where I can't have dinner because some other food "happened" during the day.
Two of my friends (tall, heavy men) are dieting with me and they can easily stay below their calculated value of 2000 calories because they are much more flexible and have a buffer to play around with their meals. So their hunger doesn't make them eat twice as much as me, although they weigh twice as much. If I would not restrict myself that much, I'd probably eat still less than they, but we would be not that far apart with our consumed calories.5 -
Well, I'm barely 5'1 and I really do have a problem with the very low calories. Sure, I don't need so much to fuel my body, but the overall amount is so small, that there is no buffer to have something nice.
Nice and thoughtful post. I miss having the occasional cappuccino- but when I'm on my diet budget of 1200 calories I really can not afford to have one even once a week (10% of my calories for a cappuccino- not) . A piece of pizza? Lol, not likely. My taller dieting friends have to juggle calories to have a piece of pizza. I'd have to make that piece replace a whole meal and no, I certainly would not be sated that day.
Sated/satisfied is not the same as not hungry. Unfortunately for my short self there is no meal plan of foods I like (but thank you to those suggestions above - I imagine if I wasn't allergic to eggs, or liked fish it would be easier) that is nutritious, satisfying and comes in under 1200 calories. So I'm left with the choice of being A) unsatisfied because I don't like my food but it is nutritional and under 1200 calories OR B ) I was satisfied in what I ate but came in at 1500 calories so I won't lose any weight. My dieting tall friends (even the picky eaters and those who take a night off weekly) do not have to make that choice because 1900 - 2500 calories gives them plenty of calorie allotment to make room for whatever they want.
It is what it is. And I think it sucks. I only get 'mad' at the self styled experts who essentially tell me that it's my own fault because I'm too lazy to retrain my metabolism so that I can eat the same 2000 calories they can. I swim 3 to 5 hours a week, do 3 to 5 hours a week aqua classes, cycling etc. - and until the past two weeks I was doing progressive bodyweight work 3 times a week. So yeah, I get mad at and respond appropriately to those who tell me it's me, my fault, and that I'm lying, lazy, weak and/or stupid6 -
Well, I'm barely 5'1 and I really do have a problem with the very low calories. Sure, I don't need so much to fuel my body, but the overall amount is so small, that there is no buffer to have something nice.
Nice and thoughtful post. I miss having the occasional cappuccino- but when I'm on my diet budget of 1200 calories I really can not afford to have one even once a week (10% of my calories for a cappuccino- not) . A piece of pizza? Lol, not likely. My taller dieting friends have to juggle calories to have a piece of pizza. I'd have to make that piece replace a whole meal and no, I certainly would not be sated that day.
Do what works for you.
I did 1250 for a while (I'm 5'3), and then I got active and starting eating more like 1600 to lose.
I definitely did not waste calories on milk in coffee on a regular basis (but I like coffee black just as much, so it would have been a waste). I also found (with 1250) that 3 meals no snacks worked best for me, but in all honesty it works best for me at maintenance with a higher cal level too.
I was generally doing 250 cal for breakfast (2 egg omelet with lots of vegetables -- pretty filling) and had about 450 left for lunch and 550 for dinner which are quite a lot if you use them sensibly.
I did not have pizza often, but one Chicago style piece (which is crazy filling) plus a salad (just vegetables) with just vinegar for dressing (or vinegar plus mustard) would fit, or even easier 2 thin crust slices (which in my mind IS a proper serving of pizza anyway) plus the salad would. It would be plenty filling until another meal (or bed if a nighttime thing), although lower protein than I like, so I'd normally plan for it when I did it.
More often I ate more plainly through the week and had one night where I'd eat a more indulgent meal (maybe pizza, but of course not a whole one, or a nice restaurant or some such). I might skip breakfast that day to have some extra calories, but having some extra workout cals on the weekend would also be helpful.Sated/satisfied is not the same as not hungry.
I'd say it's easy to not be hungry, being satisfied (not wanting food just because it's there) is the harder bit. I was usually satisfied, though, because I made sure to focus on eating foods I liked, prepared well, and for me I could do this without it being a huge calorie extravaganza. I just had to get over wanting to eat just because food was around and to trust my mind over my eyes on what an appropriate serving was.
However, as a short person, even at maintenance where I have a quite respectable calorie amount, I think being satisfied when others around you are eating foods that don't fit or impromptu snacking or the like is more my head trip, and that is -- as others have said -- because even if I have plenty of food not to be hungry I might enjoy eating and I have fewer calories to spare for that kind of thing compared with, say, some active young guy who has 3000. But so be it.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
...Well, I'm barely 5'1 and I really do have a problem with the very low calories. Sure, I don't need so much to fuel my body, but the overall amount is so small, that there is no buffer to have something nice.
Nice and thoughtful post. I miss having the occasional cappuccino- but when I'm on my diet budget of 1200 calories I really can not afford to have one even once a week (10% of my calories for a cappuccino- not) . A piece of pizza? Lol, not likely. My taller dieting friends have to juggle calories to have a piece of pizza. I'd have to make that piece replace a whole meal and no, I certainly would not be sated that day.
I did not have pizza often, but one Chicago style piece (which is crazy filling) plus a salad (just vegetables) with just vinegar for dressing (or vinegar plus mustard) would fit, or even easier 2 thin crust slices (which in my mind IS a proper serving of pizza anyway) plus the salad would. It would be plenty filling until another meal (or bed if a nighttime thing), although lower protein than I like, so I'd normally plan for it when I did it.
...
Giordannos delivers to Texas for the win! (Seriously, for my husbands birthday in August we had delivered a stuffed pizza in dry ice! I had one piece, did not eat the crust and gave my husband 1/2 the pepperoni.) That was so delicious! It put me over my budget that day (prob ate closer to 1400 calories that day.) and I didn't lose any weight that week so I might order another one next March for my birthday and have a slice then.2 -
5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice. We as a society tend to sit way too much. You can increase the amount of incidental daily movement by pacing while you're talking on the phone instead of sitting, parking far away from stores, taking the stairs instead of elevators, walking and doing body weight exercises while food is cooking, putting away laundry one piece at a time.
Most of the people I know who have high TDEE's who are older are inefficient in their daily lives and have worked to become this way purposely.
Not all activity has to be purposeful exercise. Now logging this activity is hard, but having an activity tracker helps keep track of it.
I double my daily exercise step count in incidental daily movement, and that includes walking around between sets while weight lifting. It all adds to my TDEE and makes losing weight much more pleasant than my paltry calorie allowance at 119 pounds would allow.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
...Well, I'm barely 5'1 and I really do have a problem with the very low calories. Sure, I don't need so much to fuel my body, but the overall amount is so small, that there is no buffer to have something nice.
Nice and thoughtful post. I miss having the occasional cappuccino- but when I'm on my diet budget of 1200 calories I really can not afford to have one even once a week (10% of my calories for a cappuccino- not) . A piece of pizza? Lol, not likely. My taller dieting friends have to juggle calories to have a piece of pizza. I'd have to make that piece replace a whole meal and no, I certainly would not be sated that day.
I did not have pizza often, but one Chicago style piece (which is crazy filling) plus a salad (just vegetables) with just vinegar for dressing (or vinegar plus mustard) would fit, or even easier 2 thin crust slices (which in my mind IS a proper serving of pizza anyway) plus the salad would. It would be plenty filling until another meal (or bed if a nighttime thing), although lower protein than I like, so I'd normally plan for it when I did it.
...
Giordannos delivers to Texas for the win! (Seriously, for my husbands birthday in August we had delivered a stuffed pizza in dry ice! I had one piece, did not eat the crust and gave my husband 1/2 the pepperoni.) That was so delicious! It put me over my budget that day (prob ate closer to 1400 calories that day.) and I didn't lose any weight that week so I might order another one next March for my birthday and have a slice then.
If you are trying to say that consuming 1400 calories one day put you at maintenance for the whole week then you have some logging issues or something else going on. You may be short, but even at 1400 calories I would imagine you were still in a deficit for the day. It may not have been the 500 calorie deficit that you had planned, but it certainly wouldn't have put you far enough over your TDEE to derail your whole week.3 -
This threads title makes me giggle every time I check the debate forum...
that is all, I will see myself out.
8 -
drawaimfire wrote: »This threads title makes me giggle every time I check the debate forum...
that is all, I will see myself out.
Giggity.5 -
drawaimfire wrote: »This threads title makes me giggle every time I check the debate forum...
that is all, I will see myself out.
Yup. My only response...."Yeah you do!"2 -
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.0
-
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
I wouldn't consider the circuit training I do at home with 8-12 lbs dumbells to be in the category of weight lifting (i.e. Progressive Strength Training) the way that you probably were thinking of. I think my higher than average TDEE comes more from what @GottaBurnEmAll described - intentional effort to increase my activity, including basically not sitting down if I can absolutely help it and when I do have to (desk job at work) I try to get up and move as often as possible. My walk for exercise this morning was about 7,000 steps. I will double that for my end of day total. I pace, I often ask colleagues if we can walk and talk instead of standing or sitting in someone's office, I park in the back part of the parking lot, I park at the top of the street of my kids school instead of right in front of the door, I walk to the break room at the other end of the building to refill my water, etc.
4 -
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
Perhaps it contributes, but most of us also spend A LOT of time in the gym/training weekly, which I'm sure is a much larger contributor to TDEE than a few pound of extra lean mass.1 -
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
The added RMR from increased LBM has been chronically inflated for some time. The real number has been found to be something closer to 6-7 kcals per pound, which is a stark contrast to the old 60-65 that used to get thrown around.
Does it make a difference? Sure. Is it a large amount for anyone who isn't a Mr. Olympia contender? Nope.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
The added RMR from increased LBM has been chronically inflated for some time. The real number has been found to be something closer to 6-7 kcals per pound, which is a stark contrast to the old 60-65 that used to get thrown around.
Does it make a difference? Sure. Is it a large amount for anyone who isn't a Mr. Olympia contender? Nope.
Exactly!
And Lol @ whoever is wooing us for saying that training burns a lot of cals?!
Loool
I train 2+ hours, 5-6 days a week. Of course I need a lot of food.2 -
If I'm not mistaken, I think all who have chimed in with significantly higher than the typical/estimated numbers have also all been weight training for a while. I would wager that the extra lean body mass per their current weight is probably a major factor there as well - raising BMR. MFP has us enter current weight, sex, and age since the typical person doesn't actually know their LBM - so they would have to use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to estimate based on the typical person with those stats. It would definitely under-estimate for someone older that isn't a couch potato.
I don't do heavy lifting. I have strength trained, but with light to medium weights and have taken very long breaks because I go through spells where I don't particularly like weight lifting or feel too lazy to drag out my equipment.
I've done spells of just body weight training too.
I was completely sedentary (except for walking a lot and riding my bike a lot when I was a teen) until I was 52 years old. I don't know that I have appreciable muscle mass.
My high TDEE comes, as WinoGelato said, from getting myself from being a very sedentary person to being a person who's really not happy sitting around for long stretches of time. I'm very fidgety and active now, and believe me, that is something I worked to make happen.
I used to truly be a couch potato.3 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.6 -
I don't think you understand what NEAT is. It's non-exercise activity thermogensis.
That 6000 steps could go higher with increased NEAT.
Those of us who have higher TDEEs have worked to increase things like our step counts throughout the day by doing little things like using the break room on the far side of the building, parking the car far away, bringing in groceries one bag at a time, shopping grocery aisles inefficiently, putting laundry away one item at a time.
I turn my 13,000 morning run/walk steps into 24000 steps most days by doing things like that and walking around while things are cooking on the stove, and while tea is steeping or coffee is brewing or while I'm on the phone.
Editing to add that I used to be on 1200 calories when I first started on here. I was walking maybe 3-5 hours a week and 1200 calories plus exercise calories was all I could afford to eat. I wanted to become more fit and worked hard at it.
I understand all about budgeting. I used to bank calories for treats by eating 1100 some days and saving for 5 days to have 500 calories to splurge on something.
I didn't complain or say that it wasn't fair that I was short. I worked with what I had.
You can either work with what you have or work to have more. You're not doing yourself favors having an attitude that it just sucks that you can't budget this or that. You can. You just chose not to. Take ownership of that choice, because that positive spin on how you're doing things will have a major impact on the longevity of your endeavor.
6 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.
The person with less money could get a second job and have more to spend overall. In weight management terms this would be exercising (moving more), so you have more calories to play with your caloric intake.3 -
I'm not seeing anywhere where (recently, anyhow) where someone said "you're just lazy" or doing anything wrong.
People are different. Some may naturally have a higher TDEE.
I posted my stats because saying "Short people can't eat 2000 cals/can't eat as much as teller people/whatever" is obviously not true for everyone.0 -
Strange. I see everyone saying if I were more active I wouldn't have a problem, so it's my fault for being lazy.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »5'1" 55 year old with a high TDEE chiming in here.
People aren't saying you're lazy, but they are saying that having a low amount of NEAT is a choice.
Not sure how I'm choosing a low NEAT: 3 to 5 hours a week swimming, 2 to 3 hours of aqua fit classes a week, twice weekly biking to the gym pool ( 6 miles weekly) 6000 steps average (according to Apple Watch) and a minimum of 30 minutes on stationary bike in non swim days -- yet the argument here is that I'm choosing to have a low NEAT (lazy).
No nothing is wrong. I'm older, I was majorly affected by menopause and I'm short. 1200 cals = approx 1/3 to 1/4 pound weight loss a month for me. I log accurately but with such a tight calorie budgetI could be off without my ability to know. I.e. one pot roast ( 4-5 meals) that was a bit fattier than the USDA average, one treat slice of pizza and a nutritional label with a 20% error in a week (a not unlikely scenario in a week's time) sure will eliminate a small calorie deficit easy peasy. (And, no I'm not lying)
All I keep saying is 1200 leaves no margin for error, and calorie counting isn't an exact science so someone with a 1200 calorie budget has it tougher in satisfaction/being sated and in being able to meet the budget. That a treat of 10% of a calorie budget is harder to fit in than a treat of 4% of a budget. ( Same 125 cal treat).
All I see most saying is if someone has a 1200 calorie allowance it is obviously their own fault so they don't really have it harder than us tall or super high NEAT folks. I disagree.
It obvious to me people are intentionally ignoring math.
If I had $1200 to spend a month, once I paid rent and utilities ( say $800) I would have 400 to spend on food. I probably would not spend $40 on a restaurant meal because it was too large a part of my budget. The person with $2000 could afford that $40 restaurant meal maybe even 2 or three times a month. The person with more money has it easier (financially) than the person with not quite 2/3's the money.
So I just took some guesses at 150lbs and 40 years old at 5'3 (which I don't consider short). I went with moderate option (4-6 hours moderate exercise). TDEE is 2200. So 1200 is a 1000 per day calorie deficit. Even assuming that's over by a couple hundred calories which i unlikely given how active you say you are, that's still 1500 calories per day to lose 1lb per week.
That's not dissimilar to what my numbers are at 5'5.
You are active. All anyone is saying is there are ways to be more active if you choose. I'm sedentary, I know I could perfectly easily increase my NEAT and not rely on exercise exclusively for my extra calories but I'm fine with what I do, if and when I want to be able to eat more then I will find ways to move more incidentally. It's on me and I'm not a good or bad person for doing or not doing it and neither is anyone judging me because they point that out. it's just the truth.
So I don't know where you're getting your numbers from because they're not nearly as woe as me as you seem to think they are.2 -
StarvingAuthor wrote: »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!
I'd say yes, it's all relative. I'm a 5'10" male I maintain on about 2800 calories per day (more when I'm training)...when I diet, yes...2300ish calories is a struggle...yes, I'm hungry, though I'm not ravenously so because when I diet I make sure I'm eating things that are going to help keep me full longer where as in maintenance I can have some of those not so filling but more calorie dense treats...but yeah, what sounds like a lot of calories to a female or shorter person is very much a restriction for me...
My wife is 5'2"/5'3" and she definitely gets full before I do. She's quite active so she maintains on 2200-2300 calories per day...and yes, she feel it when she cuts, but she cuts weight easily on about 1700-1800 calories per day...she definitely feels it, not the way she would if she were sedentary and had to eat 1200 or something4
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
- 176K 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