Diet recommendations for short people

2»

Replies

  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,464 Member
    renatarocha wrote: »
    Hello. Anytime I use the MyFitnessPal calorie calculator, it puts me on a 1200 calorie diet.
    I want to lose weight and I'm 4'10" (148cm). Any online calculator tells me that my basal metabolic rate is around 1200, and you're supposed to eat 500calories less than your daily calorie consumption to lose any weight. I'm not especially active due to illness and basic mathematics tell me I should consume 700 calories a day. But if I configure my profile for 700 calories it keeps telling me I'm not consuming enough calories.

    Also, it's annoying that the MyFitnessPal calculator ignores how small I am and puts me on a "default" diet.
    renatarocha wrote: »
    According to the calculator that was posted here, my daily caloric intake to lose 0.7lb or 300g/week (which I have done before and had no problems following at all) would be 1080, considering my current weight and activity level - which is still 120 calories under MFP's recommendation. If I want to lose 1lb/week at the beginning, I'd have to cut even further.

    It means that, when I lose weight, that recommendation should be even lower, since my metabolic rate decreases with less weight. Calculating from my target weight, it tells me to not go over 1300 to maintain weight.

    Every time I've tried eating more than 1000 calories a day I have gained weight and it happened FAST, about 1.5lb per week.

    I'm a paid user and it really feels degrading to not be taken into consideration because of my size.
    renatarocha wrote: »
    I recently got a BF assessment and I was told I am at 24% BF. Am I allowed to lose weight, even if it's within my healthy range?

    I'm using a 25% calorie restriction. That's where I got my data from.
    BMR = 1221
    TDEE = 1465
    Daily calories based on goal in step 6 = 1098

    A 10% caloric restriction would lead me to lose 100g a week. I'm aiming at 300g and that's absolutely ok according to health standards.

    I don't have hormonal fluctuations due to my birth control and therefore my water weight can be considered average.

    I've engaged in the 1000+ calories experiment multiple times because I've been told that I must eat 1200kcal a day. I ended up gaining 5kg in a month instead of losing the weight I wanted.

    I'm not young anymore and my body is slowing down.

    I understand your frustration. I don't understand why you don't just work around it.
    I have eaten as few as 500 calories a day.-- not by choice, just sick days. Mfp allowed me to put those calories in.

    I don't understand how much you really want to eat. First post says 700 calories a day. Second post says 1080 to lose .7 pounds a week. I'm confused about the third post, because I don't understand losing grams very well.(from U.S., only understand pounds and ounces, learning grams, but not there yet.) but if I understand you correctly, you want to cut 30% of your TDEE. 1465-439.5=1025.5. Second and third post are very similar, but both very different from the first.

    I'm sure a lot of people who first saw this post saw what I saw. 700 calories a day just jumped out at me! That is something I just could not live with.

    But you are right, you are YOU and not me. You know your self and your own body better than we do.
  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    OP, is your real underlying question "why doesn't MFP generate calorie targets below 1200 calories"? Because that's actually really easy to answer:

    The people who created the site decided that it was a good idea to configure a minimum calorie level so that the site wasn't encouraging crash-dieting behaviors. 1200 calories for women is generally determined to be a level at which we can obtain minimum nutrition.

    That doesn't mean that 1200 calories is the correct recommendation for all women. In fact, it's only the correct recommendation for a small population of women. All of the factors other than gender -- age, current weight, activity level, even height -- come into play when you're trying to pinpoint your calorie target. MFP's recommendations are designed to be relatively sensible for the majority of users, NOT to be 100% accurate for every single user in every single situation. Outliers do exist -- there are people who are more active or have higher NEAT than MFP estimates, for example, so their targets are going to have to be higher than MFP guesses. There are people with medical conditions (like PCOS) who lose more slowly than MFP estimates, so their targets can sometimes need to be adjusted downward. If you think you are genuinely an outlier, that's up to you and your doctor to determine.

    (Note that I don't actually think that you are an outlier; I think you're just trying to be too aggressive with your deficit).

    My personal experience story is that I'm on the short side (5'4") and relatively light, but I'm trying to lose a few more vanity pounds. I have to accept that I'm going to lose SLOWLY, even at a low calorie target. (I'm at 1350 on weekdays to maybe lose an average of 0.3 pounds per week). I can't create a deficit big enough to lose more quickly AND ensure adequate nutrition, so I have to suffer through slow-but-steady weight loss. It's worth it for me to be able to eat more than protein powder and kale.
  • mrs_zilla
    mrs_zilla Posts: 34 Member
    edited January 2018
    OP, is your real underlying question "why doesn't MFP generate calorie targets below 1200 calories"? Because that's actually really easy to answer:

    The people who created the site decided that it was a good idea to configure a minimum calorie level so that the site wasn't encouraging crash-dieting behaviors. 1200 calories for women is generally determined to be a level at which we can obtain minimum nutrition.

    Yes, I am frustrated because I asked a straight question and received nutritional advice as an answer. I'm not looking for nutritional advice. I'm trying to understand why the system is babysitting me and establishing a minimum based on people who are bigger than me.

    I have similar issues with the bike share service in my town, because their bikes are "one size fits all" and I'm not included in the all - the bikes are too big for me.

    Now, if people stopped asking my weight, how much I want to weigh, what's wrong with my diet, why I want to lose weight and telling me they know someone "my size" that eat a lot and have lost weight, I would certainly be more friendly. Please respect my privacy, my body and my choices.

    I dislike that the system wants to establish a minimum amount of calories. The system should understand people are different, have different needs, and some will try to do juice cleanses or fast for days with the purpose of achieving their goals. It's the user decision at the end. Not having a lower than 1200 calorie setting WON'T prevent anorexia, bulimia, fasting or anything like that. It's like alcohol prohibition - you can ban whatever you want, people will still do it.

    That's my point. I want the system to be more open and less judgemental. In the end, it's the users' decision. If I want to lose weight by cutting a leg off, you bet that it's not someone on a forum that will convince me that's a terrible idea.

    Also, saying that I should listen to users who have more experience (while you have no idea how much experience I have) is an argument from authority - a fallacy.

    If you feel I'm doing something wrong, awesome. Keep your opinion to yourself. My question is about a functionality, not your opinion on what I'm doing.
  • MichelleSilverleaf
    MichelleSilverleaf Posts: 2,027 Member
    You're right, people will do what they want in the end. But MFP won't give a platform to purposeful crash diets and things that are ultimately harmful for one's health and I think that's the point. You can still track, you just won't be able to complete your diary but you'll still be able to see your totals every day.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    renatarocha wrote: »
    OP, is your real underlying question "why doesn't MFP generate calorie targets below 1200 calories"? Because that's actually really easy to answer:

    The people who created the site decided that it was a good idea to configure a minimum calorie level so that the site wasn't encouraging crash-dieting behaviors. 1200 calories for women is generally determined to be a level at which we can obtain minimum nutrition.

    Yes, I am frustrated because I asked a straight question and received nutritional advice as an answer. I'm not looking for nutritional advice. I'm trying to understand why the system is babysitting me and establishing a minimum based on people who are bigger than me.

    Point taken that you don't want any advice. But in all fairness, you didn't ask a straight question (actually none in your original post) and the title was "Diet recommendations for short people", so hopefully you can understand why people may have misunderstood what you were after. Wish you well. :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories