Short people get the shaft
Replies
-
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.
Wow, the lengths people will go so they don't have to show any compassion for the less fortunate. "No, you are not less fortunate, and even noting a disparity in fortune is a complaint..."
Yeah, here are some unpopular opinions(I know, wrong thread):
Short people get a raw deal calorie wise.
Math tells the story.
And there are an awful lot of MFP'ers who like to engage in this gerneration's version of fat shaming - activity shaming.
There are also a whole bunch of MFP'ers who could learn the definitions of compassion and support, and could then show some to people on a weight loss platform who are working their butts off doing their best to lose some weight - and probably post on the site to get some support.
Ah well, it is the debate forum and I just found a ton of folks to add to my ignore list. I'm Done.6 -
Wiggymommy wrote: »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.
The difference between a 30 year old female of 5'0" vs 5'8" weighing 130 Lbs is 1,626 vs 1,670 calories for maintenance at sedentary...not a particularly crazy difference.
The bigger difference is activity level. A female with maintenance calories in excess of 2,000 calories isn't because she is tall...it is because she's more active.7 -
Compassion - your grocery bill is less.
Wait, that's not compassion... Nvm
I'm sorry you can't drink wine every night?
There
2 -
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.
@ryenday If you're doing all of that exercise, then you'd be able to eat those calories back to up your daily calories, right? If you're only eating 1200 calories then i assume you are not accounting for your exercise burns??2 -
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.
Wow, the lengths people will go so they don't have to show any compassion for the less fortunate. "No, you are not less fortunate, and even noting a disparity in fortune is a complaint..."
Yeah, here are some unpopular opinions(I know, wrong thread):
Short people get a raw deal calorie wise.
Math tells the story.
And there are an awful lot of MFP'ers who like to engage in this gerneration's version of fat shaming - activity shaming.
There are also a whole bunch of MFP'ers who could learn the definitions of compassion and support, and could then show some to people on a weight loss platform who are working their butts off doing their best to lose some weight - and probably post on the site to get some support.
Ah well, it is the debate forum and I just found a ton of folks to add to my ignore list. I'm Done.
I'm shorter than you and older than you and weigh less than you so therefor have a lower BMR than you.
I also have thyroid disease which might even lower my BMR to some extent.
I neither need nor want compassion for having a low BMR, because my calorie allowance is under my control.
I realized that after reading the forum posts from people like @WinoGelato who raised their calorie allowance over the time they lost weight and reading how they did it.
You have the choice to sit there and wallow, or you can do something about it. Your situation isn't fixed in stone.
I eat a very satisfying amount of calories to lose weight and don't feel one bit of remorse over having to take extra steps to do it.
Someone has it worse than I do in this life, if I sat there having a pity party for everything wrong with me, I'd still weigh 210 pounds.
You don't need compassion. You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself and to just get over this and look at the numbers and ask yourself what you're willing to do about things.
There are plenty of us whose numbers are worse than yours who are faring better, just saying.11 -
I guess what it comes down to is whether telling someone that they can increase their calorie allowance through increased activity is encouraging/helpful, or rude/unfeeling. (Is 'uncompassionate' a word?)3
-
As a generality, it has seemed to me that people who report an unusually low calorie requirement for their size/age/activity are likely to be received here with more skepticism than are people (like me) who report an inexplicably high one. This puzzles me.
I do know that's not precisely the full nature of this particular thread.
On a completely different line of thought: I'm no biologist/physiologist. Does anyone with more useful academic background know whether a pattern of anger or other negative emotions (or even general orientation to life and the world of that nature) would be likely to meaningfully elevate cortisol?6 -
As a generality, it has seemed to me that people who report an unusually low calorie requirement for their size/age/activity are likely to be received here with more skepticism than are people (like me) who report an inexplicably high one. This puzzles me.
I do know that's not precisely the full nature of this particular thread.
On a completely different line of thought: I'm no biologist/physiologist. Does anyone with more useful academic background know whether a pattern of anger or other negative emotions (or even general orientation to life and the world of that nature) would be likely to meaningfully elevate cortisol?
My comments on this topic, not specifically to this particular thread but to a pattern I've observed regularly over the past few years posting - are not usually motivated by skepticism or indifference/lack of empathy for what others are experiencing (which is what seems to be suggested in this thread). Rather, it seems there is a pervasive belief amongst many (primarily women although not exclusively), that dieting and losing weight must be a miserable experience in order to be successful. They feel it must be a requirement to cut out everything enjoyable in order to achieve their goals, to stay within their calorie target, etc. There are often a few posters who say things like "I'm short so I have to go to 1200 (or below) in order to lose" which often fuels that mindset that going for broke and choosing the most aggressive deficit is the way to go. So often, posters like these are the ones who find the entire process unsustainable, because no one wants to give up everything they enjoy just to achieve a weight loss goal.
I usually chime into these sort of threads to help counteract that prevailing mindset that anyone who is short must have a low calorie target, and anyone who desires to lose weight must give up everything they enjoy or they won't achieve their goals. I've already been branded an unsympathetic braggart in this thread, so I might as well go for broke and admit that I didn't find the process of losing weight to be miserable, or frustrating, at all. I never once felt deprived. I still drank wine regularly while losing and had pizza a couple of times a month. I enjoyed the process, of figuring out the mathematical equation of CICO, of realizing that I was in control of not only the CI part of it, but to some extent, the CO part as well. I too, originally started out at 1200 calories, and quickly realized that wasn't going to work for me if I wanted to stick with it and lose the weight I set out to lose. I read great advice on these boards that not everyone needs to cut to the bare minimum in order to be successful. I learned from veteran posters about eat more to weigh less, which helps promote a modest deficit and an active lifestyle in order to keep building on healthy habits and keep momentum going during the entire process. So I raised my calorie goal a little, I raised my activity level a lot over time, and as a result, I figured out that I am able to lose weight eating what some people consider to be their maintenance calories. I'm not saying all of this to be unsympathetic or skeptical to those who either cannot or do not make the same choices and have the same results that I've had.
I'm saying it to those who never even considered that they might be able to eat more than 1200, or 1500, or even 1800 calories and still lose weight. Who just assumed it had to be hard, miserable, and painful to be successful. It's really just meant to let some people know, who are interested in testing the math - that you may have some influence over this. It isn't always just a hand you've been dealt.15 -
@WinoGelato Can I just say you were one of the people that helped me realise that I didn't have to starve myself and be miserable throughout my weight loss.
I started at 290lb, and have lost 141lb without needing to starve myself at 1200 Calories. When i started MFP gave me around 2000 Calories without exercise to lose 1lb/week. While my base number of calories has dropped as i lost the weight my activity level has gone up exponentially which means my calories to lose weight have remained above 2000.
I've been attempting maintenance the last few weeks and before any exercise is taken in to account with my activity level set as active (not very active although I am) my base Calories are 1750. Remember I'm 5'2", 148lb (should really lose 10lb more to get in normal bmi) but this means even without taking everything other than the walking I do in to account I "could" eat 1500 to lose the healthy 0.5lb/week.
As it happens I burn way more than that, if you don't believe me fine but the numbers speak for themselves. Today is one of two seriously active days a week and I'll be starting with the school run, I don't have a car so I walk that mile. Then I'll run the mile to the gym, stick my bag in a locker and meet my PT outside for what she's promised me is going to be a "fun" session where I'll end up hating her. As soon as PT is finished we'll go in the gym where she holds a zumba class. Once zumba is finished I'll do my barbell squats before walking home.
After lunch I'll do the housework then back to school to do the pick up. Then once my OH gets home I'll walk back to the gym and do an insanity class after which I'll walk the kilometre uphill to another sports centre where I'll do boxercise before finally crawling across the road home to eat my dinner and bed.
All of this should give me around 35-40000 steps and depending on how bouncy zumba is and how much running boxercise includes a total calorie burn for the day of 3700-4000 Calories.12 -
@winegelato I've been lurking in this thread and I want to raise my glass to you (my preferred is Pinot Grigot
) well said!
@firef1y72 wow that is a LOT of activity! I admire it but I also have been there and experienced major burn out (it wasn't pretty, led to a few months of feeling extremely fatigued and depressed a few years ago). Its wise to not over do things, be consistent and active of course by all means, but your joints wont thank you in the long run for wearing them out. (Personally for me at 48 I need think ahead, look after my body/joints so I will be hopefully able to age in a healthy way without pains and aches - thats the aim anyway)
We all have to find our own happy place - for some that is being less active and counting on calories solely to attain their weight loss/maintain. For others they move more which means they can eat more - the body needs more fuel if we move more, thats just reality.
Right now I'm doing a cut (trying to get back to my pre cruise vacation weight), I'm losing .75lb a week averaging 1600 calories a day. I am 1lb away from my low end of maintenance range now and have decided to shift a few more pounds as leeway for the next vacation coming up in a few months. My average day is: 9k steps/ stationary exercise bike 35-40 mins/ strength training 3 x week. So I'm pretty active in general, yet I don't spend more than 45 mins a day on legitimate exercise. That's my happy medium. Been at maintenance for over 4 years and am still learning. (went from 21k average steps a day over a year ago to less than 10k - at that time my TDEE was 2200. Mentally I was on top form but my body eventually told me I was doing too much.) So my TDEE has now dropped to 1930 which is still fine, I can live with that but I'm not prepared for it to be lower so my choice is to keep moving.
My mantra always will be 'knowledge is power' simply because knowing the science behind CI/CO is what keeps me at a healthy weight.
Oops, that ended up being a long reply!
Ruth
5 -
deputy_randolph wrote: »I'm 5'3 and maintain at 2300 calories...also compete in powerlifting. My energy needs are pretty high.
I don't think "short people gain muscle easier," that sounds like major broscience. I do look more built than my husband who is 6'3, b/c my limbs are shorter. I guarantee that he still has more muscle...he outweighs me by 75lbs.
ETA: I'm hungry all of the time...
I read a long article yesterday about all of the ways that tall lifters have it tough (long lever arms for most exercises, more flexibility required). I'm 6'3" and I'd love to believe that's why I'm not stronger, but - because my son is a competitive high school basketball player - I know a LOT of guys over 6'6" who are strong AF and have successfully packed on a lot of muscle, so I don't really buy it. Sigh.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »As a generality, it has seemed to me that people who report an unusually low calorie requirement for their size/age/activity are likely to be received here with more skepticism than are people (like me) who report an inexplicably high one. This puzzles me.
I do know that's not precisely the full nature of this particular thread.
On a completely different line of thought: I'm no biologist/physiologist. Does anyone with more useful academic background know whether a pattern of anger or other negative emotions (or even general orientation to life and the world of that nature) would be likely to meaningfully elevate cortisol?
My comments on this topic, not specifically to this particular thread but to a pattern I've observed regularly over the past few years posting - are not usually motivated by skepticism or indifference/lack of empathy for what others are experiencing (which is what seems to be suggested in this thread). Rather, it seems there is a pervasive belief amongst many (primarily women although not exclusively), that dieting and losing weight must be a miserable experience in order to be successful. They feel it must be a requirement to cut out everything enjoyable in order to achieve their goals, to stay within their calorie target, etc. There are often a few posters who say things like "I'm short so I have to go to 1200 (or below) in order to lose" which often fuels that mindset that going for broke and choosing the most aggressive deficit is the way to go. So often, posters like these are the ones who find the entire process unsustainable, because no one wants to give up everything they enjoy just to achieve a weight loss goal.
I usually chime into these sort of threads to help counteract that prevailing mindset that anyone who is short must have a low calorie target, and anyone who desires to lose weight must give up everything they enjoy or they won't achieve their goals. I've already been branded an unsympathetic braggart in this thread, so I might as well go for broke and admit that I didn't find the process of losing weight to be miserable, or frustrating, at all. I never once felt deprived. I still drank wine regularly while losing and had pizza a couple of times a month. I enjoyed the process, of figuring out the mathematical equation of CICO, of realizing that I was in control of not only the CI part of it, but to some extent, the CO part as well. I too, originally started out at 1200 calories, and quickly realized that wasn't going to work for me if I wanted to stick with it and lose the weight I set out to lose. I read great advice on these boards that not everyone needs to cut to the bare minimum in order to be successful. I learned from veteran posters about eat more to weigh less, which helps promote a modest deficit and an active lifestyle in order to keep building on healthy habits and keep momentum going during the entire process. So I raised my calorie goal a little, I raised my activity level a lot over time, and as a result, I figured out that I am able to lose weight eating what some people consider to be their maintenance calories. I'm not saying all of this to be unsympathetic or skeptical to those who either cannot or do not make the same choices and have the same results that I've had.
I'm saying it to those who never even considered that they might be able to eat more than 1200, or 1500, or even 1800 calories and still lose weight. Who just assumed it had to be hard, miserable, and painful to be successful. It's really just meant to let some people know, who are interested in testing the math - that you may have some influence over this. It isn't always just a hand you've been dealt.
I love that you go into your experience and think it is -- or should be -- quite inspirational, and I bet it is for a lot of people who don't comment.
I recall when I first started and learned about TDEE, I started understanding some things. First, I understood why I'd started gaining so fast when I didn't eat that much (in my mind). Part of it was that at sedentary (which I'd abruptly become) and 5'3, 125, my maintenance was something like 1600. So I kept eating the 2100 or so I'd gotten used to when active and, well, gained.
Another part was running the numbers and realizing that if the formulas were right the difference between a maintenance of 1600 (not including exercise) and around 1900 was just being lightly active -- i.e., walking around more during a normal day. Since 1600 sounded crazy (and it would be slightly less now, since these numbers are for me when younger and a bit heavier) and 1900 sounded normal, well, that got my attention.
The very first thing I did when I started losing -- in part because I was too out of shape to do much else -- was deciding that I would get back to walking as much as possible (something I'd done most of my life until the past few years, and even then wasn't THAT horrible, since I live in a city). I got a Fitbit (although that's not necessary) and realized that if I walked as I should be -- for commuting (I take public transportation but walk to and from the L stop), to the store on the way home, to the gym if I go, for errands, etc. -- I would easily hit 10,000 steps and be at least lightly active even BEFORE intentional exercise. Doing that became my goal and I swiftly found that I could often get in more steps if I didn't mind looking dumb (wait of 7 minutes for the train in the evening? rather than sit and read, I might pace).
I soon added in more other exercise too -- quite a lot at times -- but this base not being sedentary even if I cannot exercise was one of the most important.
In fact, I've tended to find exercise of other sorts important for my motivation, fun in themselves, so on, but not necessary as helpful for weight loss, as when I'm running or swimming a lot I do find it harder to keep a deficit. Walking never did that to me, and neither did biking -- the easiest way I have personally found to increase my TDEE was when I was routinely bike commuting (I do an extra loop to make it 13 miles each way, and would often find it an easy way to get in a workout on the way home and so do 25 or so then). For various reasons I have not done this at all this year, and it made me realize how helpful that kind of thing can be.
Anyway, how we get our TDEEs up and I suppose if we even want to is going to vary, but I find it so helpful (whether I'm acting on it or not) to keep in mind how much TDEE is under our control. Not completely, but within a range, absolutely. Seeing people on MFP, even those who are smaller than me, for whom this is so is one helpful thing for me.
(And re the calculators, my numbers seem to be in line, so I don't think I have any special advantage with metabolism. Wish I did, of course, but I'm just talking about the ordinary numbers.)7 -
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.
On page four of this thread you posted a photo showing that your maintenance level was 1647 calories, and said that you burned an additional 400-600 calories 3 or 4 days a week doing cardio. Now you are claiming that at 1200 calories a day you lose only 1/4 to a 1/3 lb a month??? If that was true, that would mean that your maintenance level would be at somewhere in the 1230-1240 calories a day range and that isn't even taking into account any exercise.
Of course people are going to be skeptical when others claim to not be able to lose weight on 1200 calories a day. Your biggest obstacle in losing weight is not that you are short, it is that your attitude is terrible and you are full of excuses. You are getting all upset and defensive with people who are simply trying to give you advice that will help you. You complain that people are not being compassionate simply because they refuse to accept that you are powerless in your ability to lose weight. There are a number of people in this thread who have faced obstacles larger than you and succeeded, so I would suggest you stop making excuses and start listening to what they have to say.10 -
Ok, last reply. I am making no excuses. Weight loss for me IS a miserable existence. It is what it is - as I have said all along I do lose weight (1/3 lb a week pretty steady for 6 mos if we include initial water weight) in 1200 calories daily allotment. I do eat closer to 1400 on swim days. I have made plenty of lifestyle adjustments including regular exercise.
The picture I posted is of a calculator predicting an Average person of my size and age and height's maintenance calories allotment and weight loss allotment. I posted it to support my opinion that short people get the shaft. Mine are clearly lower, but if you do the math it is still within a 20% margin of error, so probably there are plenty of folk like me out there on MFP silenced - unwilling to be attacked like I have been here.
Advice and support? Lol, that would be someone saying something like " gosh, that looks hard to do on that low calories, you have done great sticking with it! Maybe if you are miserable take a break from those low calories, or try IF so you have some extra calories to play with .... One person on the thread DID try, she put together a meal plan for a day in that restricted way to do it. I thanked her.
The dang thread is "do short people get the shaft" and my opinion is they do. Why? B/c MATH folks. So I posted my opinion. Then the snarky, strange you are doing it wrong comments started and I tried to defend myself and support my opinion.
So you can all pat yourselves on the back and be smug about your above average NEATS and TDEES that you obviously deserve because you loved losing weight and are positive and happy about weight loss and worked so hard to up your calories.
I'm proud of my 20ish hard fought miserable experience weight loss pounds gone. Yes, I think it sucks to be miserable. So, I happily accept good advice that can be implemented. I've never given up, and am doing the best I can with what nature is giving me to work with : a below average but within a 20% of normal predicted calorie allotment/burn.
Short people get shafted, yes that is my opinion. I tried to support that opinion with a calorie allotment calculator screen shot ( I believe in response to something someone said about it is never necessary to go down to 1200 to lose weight, short or not), I tried to support the opinion with my own experience. But that was obviously MFP blasphemy and personal attacks ensued. I made the mistake of trying to defend myself and my opinion. More personal character attacks.
So I make my last post. Have fun in your mutual admiration society - congratulations on how well you've done.
Don't bother with me, the person whose still doing her best to get to the maintenance side of the fence, I'll not trouble you further with realism instead of blind optimism, with math instead of hope, and with my blasphemous unpopular opinions. I'll be too busy working on getting fitter and healthier. - Off to swim, now. Bye.13 -
Height has little to do with calorie requirements--weight and activity are the primary factors. Two people who each weigh 125 pounds will have similar calorie needs for similar activity, whether 5'0" or 5'7".6
-
Height has little to do with calorie requirements--weight and activity are the primary factors. Two people who each weigh 125 pounds will have similar calorie needs for similar activity, whether 5'0" or 5'7".
True..but only one of them isn't on the borderline of being fat at that weight.
3 -
Height has little to do with calorie requirements--weight and activity are the primary factors. Two people who each weigh 125 pounds will have similar calorie needs for similar activity, whether 5'0" or 5'7".
Lean mass is more important than weight, and the 5'0 person would have less lean mass at 125 than the 5'7 person. But TDEE is ALSO about activity, and the two will have similar burns for similar amounts of activity, true.0 -
The dang thread is "do short people get the shaft" and my opinion is they do. Why? B/c MATH folks. So I posted my opinion.
Nothing wrong with your opinion, but the thread isn't really about support (other threads are, of course, but this is debate) and as I understand it the idea that someone 5'1 will have a lower TDEE than someone 6'1, on average, all else equal (and BIG factors are included in my "all else equal") was a given. The question is whether it evens out because someone 5'1 needs and probably desires fewer calories than someone 6'1, in rough ratio to their TDEEs, or not.
IMO, no idea, can't say. I am inclined to the idea that people (not food insecure) more often than not want to eat because food is tasty and available and others around them are eating and it looks desirable, and not just hunger. So while I would agree that someone will usually be able to be not hungry on their actual TDEE, whatever it is, I do think those factors might be harder for someone short (and I'm 5'3, so sort of short, although not very).
If you go so far as to say that it's harder for short people because short people can't have wine without skipping breakfast or can never have pizza, that I would personally disagree with, but of course someone with a TDEE of 1800 can fit in pizza or wine less easily than someone with a TDEE of 3000, presumably.
As for TDEE, my predicted TDEE (if sedentary) is 1550, for maintenance. But that's for sedentary. If I just walk enough to be lightly active it's more like 1850. If I do some intentional exercise, it's more. Can I still go over it easily without thinking if I am thoughtless or if I indulge in some high cal foods? Of course, but does this make it harder for me than for someone 6'3 and super active? IMO, can't say. Even for myself how easy it has been has varied from time to time (sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's not), and my height has not changed at all.3 -
Ok, last reply. I am making no excuses. Weight loss for me IS a miserable existence. It is what it is - as I have said all along I do lose weight (1/3 lb a week pretty steady for 6 mos if we include initial water weight) in 1200 calories daily allotment. I do eat closer to 1400 on swim days. I have made plenty of lifestyle adjustments including regular exercise.
The picture I posted is of a calculator predicting an Average person of my size and age and height's maintenance calories allotment and weight loss allotment. I posted it to support my opinion that short people get the shaft. Mine are clearly lower, but if you do the math it is still within a 20% margin of error, so probably there are plenty of folk like me out there on MFP silenced - unwilling to be attacked like I have been here.
Advice and support? Lol, that would be someone saying something like " gosh, that looks hard to do on that low calories, you have done great sticking with it! Maybe if you are miserable take a break from those low calories, or try IF so you have some extra calories to play with .... One person on the thread DID try, she put together a meal plan for a day in that restricted way to do it. I thanked her.
The dang thread is "do short people get the shaft" and my opinion is they do. Why? B/c MATH folks. So I posted my opinion. Then the snarky, strange you are doing it wrong comments started and I tried to defend myself and support my opinion.
So you can all pat yourselves on the back and be smug about your above average NEATS and TDEES that you obviously deserve because you loved losing weight and are positive and happy about weight loss and worked so hard to up your calories.
I'm proud of my 20ish hard fought miserable experience weight loss pounds gone. Yes, I think it sucks to be miserable. So, I happily accept good advice that can be implemented. I've never given up, and am doing the best I can with what nature is giving me to work with : a below average but within a 20% of normal predicted calorie allotment/burn.
Short people get shafted, yes that is my opinion. I tried to support that opinion with a calorie allotment calculator screen shot ( I believe in response to something someone said about it is never necessary to go down to 1200 to lose weight, short or not), I tried to support the opinion with my own experience. But that was obviously MFP blasphemy and personal attacks ensued. I made the mistake of trying to defend myself and my opinion. More personal character attacks.
So I make my last post. Have fun in your mutual admiration society - congratulations on how well you've done.
Don't bother with me, the person whose still doing her best to get to the maintenance side of the fence, I'll not trouble you further with realism instead of blind optimism, with math instead of hope, and with my blasphemous unpopular opinions. I'll be too busy working on getting fitter and healthier. - Off to swim, now. Bye.
This is fine, if your maths were right, but it's not. As has been displayed by many here using their own stats and having a guess at yours and running them through calculators.
Shrug. Carry on. But don't think your height is what is making you worse off. It's probably logging accuracy TBH because there's nothing wrong with your TDEE regardless of what you think.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Ok, last reply. I am making no excuses. Weight loss for me IS a miserable existence. It is what it is - as I have said all along I do lose weight (1/3 lb a week pretty steady for 6 mos if we include initial water weight) in 1200 calories daily allotment. I do eat closer to 1400 on swim days. I have made plenty of lifestyle adjustments including regular exercise.
The picture I posted is of a calculator predicting an Average person of my size and age and height's maintenance calories allotment and weight loss allotment. I posted it to support my opinion that short people get the shaft. Mine are clearly lower, but if you do the math it is still within a 20% margin of error, so probably there are plenty of folk like me out there on MFP silenced - unwilling to be attacked like I have been here.
Advice and support? Lol, that would be someone saying something like " gosh, that looks hard to do on that low calories, you have done great sticking with it! Maybe if you are miserable take a break from those low calories, or try IF so you have some extra calories to play with .... One person on the thread DID try, she put together a meal plan for a day in that restricted way to do it. I thanked her.
The dang thread is "do short people get the shaft" and my opinion is they do. Why? B/c MATH folks. So I posted my opinion. Then the snarky, strange you are doing it wrong comments started and I tried to defend myself and support my opinion.
So you can all pat yourselves on the back and be smug about your above average NEATS and TDEES that you obviously deserve because you loved losing weight and are positive and happy about weight loss and worked so hard to up your calories.
I'm proud of my 20ish hard fought miserable experience weight loss pounds gone. Yes, I think it sucks to be miserable. So, I happily accept good advice that can be implemented. I've never given up, and am doing the best I can with what nature is giving me to work with : a below average but within a 20% of normal predicted calorie allotment/burn.
Short people get shafted, yes that is my opinion. I tried to support that opinion with a calorie allotment calculator screen shot ( I believe in response to something someone said about it is never necessary to go down to 1200 to lose weight, short or not), I tried to support the opinion with my own experience. But that was obviously MFP blasphemy and personal attacks ensued. I made the mistake of trying to defend myself and my opinion. More personal character attacks.
So I make my last post. Have fun in your mutual admiration society - congratulations on how well you've done.
Don't bother with me, the person whose still doing her best to get to the maintenance side of the fence, I'll not trouble you further with realism instead of blind optimism, with math instead of hope, and with my blasphemous unpopular opinions. I'll be too busy working on getting fitter and healthier. - Off to swim, now. Bye.
This is fine, if your maths were right, but it's not. As has been displayed by many here using their own stats and having a guess at yours and running them through calculators.
Shrug. Carry on. But don't think your height is what is making you worse off. It's probably logging accuracy TBH because there's nothing wrong with your TDEE regardless of what you think.
or extended periods of dieting have caused adaptive thermosis (or whatever the word is) - tied with an increase in cortisol which hampers weight loss3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The dang thread is "do short people get the shaft" and my opinion is they do. Why? B/c MATH folks. So I posted my opinion.
Nothing wrong with your opinion, but the thread isn't really about support (other threads are, of course, but this is debate) and as I understand it the idea that someone 5'1 will have a lower TDEE than someone 6'1, on average, all else equal (and BIG factors are included in my "all else equal") was a given. The question is whether it evens out because someone 5'1 needs and probably desires fewer calories than someone 6'1, in rough ratio to their TDEEs, or not.
IMO, no idea, can't say. I am inclined to the idea that people (not food insecure) more often than not want to eat because food is tasty and available and others around them are eating and it looks desirable, and not just hunger. So while I would agree that someone will usually be able to be not hungry on their actual TDEE, whatever it is, I do think those factors might be harder for someone short (and I'm 5'3, so sort of short, although not very).
If you go so far as to say that it's harder for short people because short people can't have wine without skipping breakfast or can never have pizza, that I would personally disagree with, but of course someone with a TDEE of 1800 can fit in pizza or wine less easily than someone with a TDEE of 3000, presumably.
As for TDEE, my predicted TDEE (if sedentary) is 1550, for maintenance. But that's for sedentary. If I just walk enough to be lightly active it's more like 1850. If I do some intentional exercise, it's more. Can I still go over it easily without thinking if I am thoughtless or if I indulge in some high cal foods? Of course, but does this make it harder for me than for someone 6'3 and super active? IMO, can't say. Even for myself how easy it has been has varied from time to time (sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's not), and my height has not changed at all.
Yes. that mostly corresponds with my opinion on it as well.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »As a generality, it has seemed to me that people who report an unusually low calorie requirement for their size/age/activity are likely to be received here with more skepticism than are people (like me) who report an inexplicably high one. This puzzles me.
I do know that's not precisely the full nature of this particular thread.
On a completely different line of thought: I'm no biologist/physiologist. Does anyone with more useful academic background know whether a pattern of anger or other negative emotions (or even general orientation to life and the world of that nature) would be likely to meaningfully elevate cortisol?
My comments on this topic, not specifically to this particular thread but to a pattern I've observed regularly over the past few years posting - are not usually motivated by skepticism or indifference/lack of empathy for what others are experiencing (which is what seems to be suggested in this thread). Rather, it seems there is a pervasive belief amongst many (primarily women although not exclusively), that dieting and losing weight must be a miserable experience in order to be successful. They feel it must be a requirement to cut out everything enjoyable in order to achieve their goals, to stay within their calorie target, etc. There are often a few posters who say things like "I'm short so I have to go to 1200 (or below) in order to lose" which often fuels that mindset that going for broke and choosing the most aggressive deficit is the way to go. So often, posters like these are the ones who find the entire process unsustainable, because no one wants to give up everything they enjoy just to achieve a weight loss goal.
I usually chime into these sort of threads to help counteract that prevailing mindset that anyone who is short must have a low calorie target, and anyone who desires to lose weight must give up everything they enjoy or they won't achieve their goals. I've already been branded an unsympathetic braggart in this thread, so I might as well go for broke and admit that I didn't find the process of losing weight to be miserable, or frustrating, at all. I never once felt deprived. I still drank wine regularly while losing and had pizza a couple of times a month. I enjoyed the process, of figuring out the mathematical equation of CICO, of realizing that I was in control of not only the CI part of it, but to some extent, the CO part as well. I too, originally started out at 1200 calories, and quickly realized that wasn't going to work for me if I wanted to stick with it and lose the weight I set out to lose. I read great advice on these boards that not everyone needs to cut to the bare minimum in order to be successful. I learned from veteran posters about eat more to weigh less, which helps promote a modest deficit and an active lifestyle in order to keep building on healthy habits and keep momentum going during the entire process. So I raised my calorie goal a little, I raised my activity level a lot over time, and as a result, I figured out that I am able to lose weight eating what some people consider to be their maintenance calories. I'm not saying all of this to be unsympathetic or skeptical to those who either cannot or do not make the same choices and have the same results that I've had.
I'm saying it to those who never even considered that they might be able to eat more than 1200, or 1500, or even 1800 calories and still lose weight. Who just assumed it had to be hard, miserable, and painful to be successful. It's really just meant to let some people know, who are interested in testing the math - that you may have some influence over this. It isn't always just a hand you've been dealt.
You, as I said, inspired me.
As I have stated before, I started out with a bleak medical diagnosis and walking with a cane. I knew things had to change for me and didn't want to spend the rest of my life eating at a very low calorie limit, even though I was originally just fine dieting at 1200.
I found regular activity to be something that my medical condition thrived on, and my calorie count needed to rise to accommodate it.
I might scale back from 24K steps to 20K in maintenance, but that would probably be about all the adjusting that I'd do.
We have all, to some extent, been dealt certain hands. We can choose to exert as much influence as possible over whether we thrive under the conditions in which we find ourselves - or not.
I'm choosing to thrive as much as possible. Thanks for pointing the way.6 -
As a generality, it has seemed to me that people who report an unusually low calorie requirement for their size/age/activity are likely to be received here with more skepticism than are people (like me) who report an inexplicably high one. This puzzles me.
I do know that's not precisely the full nature of this particular thread.
On a completely different line of thought: I'm no biologist/physiologist. Does anyone with more useful academic background know whether a pattern of anger or other negative emotions (or even general orientation to life and the world of that nature) would be likely to meaningfully elevate cortisol?
I think it depends on the context of the report. I know that both @amusedmonkey and @tomteboda report having lower than expected calorie requirements for their size/age/activity and I've yet to see either one of their claims met with skepticism.
Both have a stellar history of reasonable and well-reasoned posting, and both simply acknowledge that such is their lot in life, accept it, and move on.
On the other side of the coin, I've seen unreasonable claims of artificially high intakes met with skepticism too. Just saying.
TLDR? I have yet to see a reasonable claim from either end of the spectrum met with skepticism.7 -
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.
Wow, the lengths people will go so they don't have to show any compassion for the less fortunate. "No, you are not less fortunate, and even noting a disparity in fortune is a complaint..."
Yeah, here are some unpopular opinions(I know, wrong thread):
Short people get a raw deal calorie wise.
Math tells the story.
And there are an awful lot of MFP'ers who like to engage in this gerneration's version of fat shaming - activity shaming.
There are also a whole bunch of MFP'ers who could learn the definitions of compassion and support, and could then show some to people on a weight loss platform who are working their butts off doing their best to lose some weight - and probably post on the site to get some support.
Ah well, it is the debate forum and I just found a ton of folks to add to my ignore list. I'm Done.
The lengths people will go to frame themselves as victims...
I have loads of compassion for short people. I let you guys know what's going on at parades all the time, help you up on bar stools, let you know of impending rain, etc.11 -
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.
Wow, the lengths people will go so they don't have to show any compassion for the less fortunate. "No, you are not less fortunate, and even noting a disparity in fortune is a complaint..."
Yeah, here are some unpopular opinions(I know, wrong thread):
Short people get a raw deal calorie wise.
Math tells the story.
And there are an awful lot of MFP'ers who like to engage in this gerneration's version of fat shaming - activity shaming.
There are also a whole bunch of MFP'ers who could learn the definitions of compassion and support, and could then show some to people on a weight loss platform who are working their butts off doing their best to lose some weight - and probably post on the site to get some support.
Ah well, it is the debate forum and I just found a ton of folks to add to my ignore list. I'm Done.
The lengths people will go to frame themselves as victims...
I have loads of compassion for short people. I let you guys know what's going on at parades all the time, help you up on bar stools, let you know of impending rain, etc.
The really important question is: will you retrieve items from high shelves in grocery stores for us?12 -
i'm 5'6" but got 1200 too1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
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.
Wow, the lengths people will go so they don't have to show any compassion for the less fortunate. "No, you are not less fortunate, and even noting a disparity in fortune is a complaint..."
Yeah, here are some unpopular opinions(I know, wrong thread):
Short people get a raw deal calorie wise.
Math tells the story.
And there are an awful lot of MFP'ers who like to engage in this gerneration's version of fat shaming - activity shaming.
There are also a whole bunch of MFP'ers who could learn the definitions of compassion and support, and could then show some to people on a weight loss platform who are working their butts off doing their best to lose some weight - and probably post on the site to get some support.
Ah well, it is the debate forum and I just found a ton of folks to add to my ignore list. I'm Done.
The lengths people will go to frame themselves as victims...
I have loads of compassion for short people. I let you guys know what's going on at parades all the time, help you up on bar stools, let you know of impending rain, etc.
The really important question is: will you retrieve items from high shelves in grocery stores for us?
Absolutely! For any society to succeed we must all work together. You guys let me know if my shoes are untied and I'll retrieve top shelf items...deal?5 -
ha. I'm 5'1" and am ALWAYS hungry.3
-
sheepingly wrote: »i'm 5'6" but got 1200 too
This usually is heavily impacted by the goal rate of loss you selected when setting up your profile.
You are 5'6, but how much do you weigh, how much are you trying to lose, and what rate of loss did you select?
Was that rate of loss appropriate for the amount of weight you are trying to lose, most people choose the most aggressive goal because they want to lose weight as fast as possible, not realizing that there are adverse effects to large deficits and rapid weight loss. MOST people can lose weight eating more than 1200 calories, particularly if they are not extremely petite (you aren't), and completely sedentary (do you exercise? are you active?).
A wise rabbit used to say - the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight...9 -
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!
Hi! I'm 5'. A few things:
(1) I think short people are conditioned to think that the portion sizes that are "normal" are normal for everyone. It's taking me a long time recalibrate my idea of what a proper portion size is. Then again, someone who was overweight and taller would probably consider my portions before pretty reasonable; but they weren't reasonable for my height.
(2) Because our caloric needs are smaller, we can eat relatively "healthy" and still gain weight; this makes it easier to be in denial. The psychological impact of just not being able to eat the same as everyone else in a culture that sort of glorifies being able to eat absurd amounts of food is significant, and takes a while to overcome.
(3) MFP doesn't adequately scale for shorter people. I think the guideline of reducing caloric intake by 20% of maintenance is useful because cutting 1 pound a week is a huge deficit for me unless I've exercised a lot, and I wish I could set my calorie goal by percentages instead of by pounds-per-week. And 2 pounds a week is absolutely impossible unless I run daily marathons.
Ultimately there are one or two more things short people have to keep in mind when using tools like MFP or trying to lose weight in general. It will suck more initially, but I think in the long run weight loss is hard for everyone of all heights. (tall people, yes we do see your struggles and they're valid af!!!)7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions