Short people get the shaft
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »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...
I'm 37, 5'6", 217lbs. Want to lose 2lbs/week. I'm sedentary lifestyle wise. Desk job, plus i have an online business which is more sitting.
I just started working out again and my plan is to run/walk (3x a week until i can run a 5K without stopping - im using a C25K app). The other 3 days i am walking for 45 min - hour and the 7th day...rest day/stretching.
In about 2 weeks i'll incorporate strength training and do that on my "walk" days. Meaning make the walk shorter and incorporate strength training.
My TDEE is 2016, I'm cutting to 1516 but MFP says 1200 so I usually try to eat between the two.0 -
sheepingly wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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...
I'm 37, 5'6", 217lbs. Want to lose 2lbs/week. I'm sedentary lifestyle wise. Desk job, plus i have an online business which is more sitting.
I just started working out again and my plan is to run/walk (3x a week until i can run a 5K without stopping - im using a C25K app). The other 3 days i am walking for 45 min - hour and the 7th day...rest day/stretching.
In about 2 weeks i'll incorporate strength training and do that on my "walk" days. Meaning make the walk shorter and incorporate strength training.
My TDEE is 2016, I'm cutting to 1516 but MFP says 1200 so I usually try to eat between the two.
Hmmm.... where did you get that TDEE number from? Did you include your new exercise routine in the calculations when you determined it? Because I would think for the stats you've posted, and with exercise factored in (which TDEE should include) then it would be higher than 2016.
You don't need to use the TDEE approach though, MFP is set up to work off of a NEAT estimate, where you would base the calories off of your sedentary activity level for non-exercise and then when you do exercise, eat back at least a portion of those. Are you doing that today?
How long have you been at it, and what results have you seen so far? The other important thing is logging accurately, are you using a food scale?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »sheepingly wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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...
I'm 37, 5'6", 217lbs. Want to lose 2lbs/week. I'm sedentary lifestyle wise. Desk job, plus i have an online business which is more sitting.
I just started working out again and my plan is to run/walk (3x a week until i can run a 5K without stopping - im using a C25K app). The other 3 days i am walking for 45 min - hour and the 7th day...rest day/stretching.
In about 2 weeks i'll incorporate strength training and do that on my "walk" days. Meaning make the walk shorter and incorporate strength training.
My TDEE is 2016, I'm cutting to 1516 but MFP says 1200 so I usually try to eat between the two.
Hmmm.... where did you get that TDEE number from? Did you include your new exercise routine in the calculations when you determined it? Because I would think for the stats you've posted, and with exercise factored in (which TDEE should include) then it would be higher than 2016.
You don't need to use the TDEE approach though, MFP is set up to work off of a NEAT estimate, where you would base the calories off of your sedentary activity level for non-exercise and then when you do exercise, eat back at least a portion of those. Are you doing that today?
How long have you been at it, and what results have you seen so far? The other important thing is logging accurately, are you using a food scale?
Years ago when I use to MMA train and compete my lifestyle would be about training 6 days a week and not really track eating but still ate well (lean meats/veggies/grains) and i dropped around 30ish lbs in 3 months.
But I quit 8 years ago and of course my body is not used to that anymore. So I chose what i chose listed above. Yes I know how to input #'s to get TDEE and that's my TDEE pre-work out regimen. I will check the stats in a couple of weeks of working out consistently to see if my TDEE #'s are different.
Yes i log and weigh everything. As far as today goes, I haven't finished logging everything as i'm not sure what snack i'll eat yet..and what i will eat when i eat back some of my exercise cals.1 -
sheepingly wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sheepingly wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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...
I'm 37, 5'6", 217lbs. Want to lose 2lbs/week. I'm sedentary lifestyle wise. Desk job, plus i have an online business which is more sitting.
I just started working out again and my plan is to run/walk (3x a week until i can run a 5K without stopping - im using a C25K app). The other 3 days i am walking for 45 min - hour and the 7th day...rest day/stretching.
In about 2 weeks i'll incorporate strength training and do that on my "walk" days. Meaning make the walk shorter and incorporate strength training.
My TDEE is 2016, I'm cutting to 1516 but MFP says 1200 so I usually try to eat between the two.
Hmmm.... where did you get that TDEE number from? Did you include your new exercise routine in the calculations when you determined it? Because I would think for the stats you've posted, and with exercise factored in (which TDEE should include) then it would be higher than 2016.
You don't need to use the TDEE approach though, MFP is set up to work off of a NEAT estimate, where you would base the calories off of your sedentary activity level for non-exercise and then when you do exercise, eat back at least a portion of those. Are you doing that today?
How long have you been at it, and what results have you seen so far? The other important thing is logging accurately, are you using a food scale?
Years ago when I use to MMA train and compete my lifestyle would be about training 6 days a week and not really track eating but still ate well (lean meats/veggies/grains) and i dropped around 30ish lbs in 3 months.
But I quit 8 years ago and of course my body is not used to that anymore. So I chose what i chose listed above. Yes I know how to input #'s to get TDEE and that's my TDEE pre-work out regimen. I will check the stats in a couple of weeks of working out consistently to see if my TDEE #'s are different.
Yes i log everything.
But TDEE is TOTAL daily energy expenditure. It's supposed to include your exercise. What you've described is your NEAT... and while consistency is what really matters, it's confusing to say that your TDEE is one number but then know that it is higher with exercise. Are you eating back the exercise calories?
0 -
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!!!)
I think these are insightful comments and they resonate with me. The eating healthy thing, especially, as I started gaining because I stopped being active (I was eating a healthy diet) and didn't adjust. I continued eating my healthy diet, which was now about 500 cal per day too caloric (I became really sedentary as a result of life stress, depression, various things). Once I realized I really had gained and was gaining--after being in denial for a while--I jumped into "will deal with it tomorrow" and then started eating even more because, eh, I'd already ruined everything, everything was horrible, it didn't matter, and I couldn't deal with it right now. (But for a ridiculously long time I thought that if I just stuck to "healthy" foods -- meaning nutritionally dense, less processed, blah, blah -- I'd naturally eat the right number of calories, because that's how it was supposed to work.)
A bit off the topic, but it's one reason why it drives me crazy when people assume that you have to know nothing about nutrition and have been eating poorly (nutritionally, not calorie wise) to have gained weight. Yeah, not great to be careless with the olive oil, but if I were larger that number of calories wouldn't have made such a difference, at least not so quickly, as it would be a lower percentage of my diet.
NOT saying it's harder for short people or whining, but I found that a bit enlightening, maybe, with respect to how some men (not all men) on the site seem to assume that if you got fat you must have been eating lots of nutritionally poor high cal foods and not know a thing about nutrition. Or that if you eat healthfully you won't be able to overeat.3 -
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?
I actually sort of did this very thing today! A woman was trying to reach a cardigan and I could see her struggling, so I offered to grab it for her. Us slightly taller folks helping out the shorter folks. And I was wearing boots with a heel, added advantage.
Care in the community.9 -
Wow, I'm 5'2" and almost 60 and my basal caloric needs are 1850/day. I generally eat about 2500 to maintain, about 2200 to cut. But I'm a lifter and I lift heavy. My most recent dexa scan results were "bones of a healthy young adult".
I can't run even one block though. Well, not actually true -- I could probably run to the donut shop but then I'd walk home.
Everyone's different.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »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?
I actually sort of did this very thing today! A woman was trying to reach a cardigan and I could see her struggling, so I offered to grab it for her. Us slightly taller folks helping out the shorter folks. And I was wearing boots with a heel, added advantage.
Care in the community.
I literally climbed the shelves in Walmart to get something at the back of the top one for my mom. We're both really short
2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »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?
I actually sort of did this very thing today! A woman was trying to reach a cardigan and I could see her struggling, so I offered to grab it for her. Us slightly taller folks helping out the shorter folks. And I was wearing boots with a heel, added advantage.
Care in the community.
I literally climbed the shelves in Walmart to get something at the back of the top one for my mom. We're both really short
I too cannot reach to the top back of supermarket shelves. I'm average of height, this lady was a good bit shorter!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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!!!)
I think these are insightful comments and they resonate with me. The eating healthy thing, especially, as I started gaining because I stopped being active (I was eating a healthy diet) and didn't adjust. I continued eating my healthy diet, which was now about 500 cal per day too caloric (I became really sedentary as a result of life stress, depression, various things). Once I realized I really had gained and was gaining--after being in denial for a while--I jumped into "will deal with it tomorrow" and then started eating even more because, eh, I'd already ruined everything, everything was horrible, it didn't matter, and I couldn't deal with it right now. (But for a ridiculously long time I thought that if I just stuck to "healthy" foods -- meaning nutritionally dense, less processed, blah, blah -- I'd naturally eat the right number of calories, because that's how it was supposed to work.)
A bit off the topic, but it's one reason why it drives me crazy when people assume that you have to know nothing about nutrition and have been eating poorly (nutritionally, not calorie wise) to have gained weight. Yeah, not great to be careless with the olive oil, but if I were larger that number of calories wouldn't have made such a difference, at least not so quickly, as it would be a lower percentage of my diet.
NOT saying it's harder for short people or whining, but I found that a bit enlightening, maybe, with respect to how some men (not all men) on the site seem to assume that if you got fat you must have been eating lots of nutritionally poor high cal foods and not know a thing about nutrition. Or that if you eat healthfully you won't be able to overeat.
Yup! For tall men, it really is hard to overeat when eating a "healthy" diet. If your active TDEE is 4000 calories as opposed to 2000 (I barely break 1900 even after a tough gym sesh) you will find it hard to overeat if you eat healthy.
I've been on long backpacking trips (8-15 hilly miles a day carrying 40% of my weight on my back) and long bike trips (60-100 miles a day on a fully loaded bike) and I've managed to gain a little weight. My fellow male travelers have lost weight, without fail, even though they were eating more than I am. There is no amount of activity that I can't out-eat; for some men, there are some levels of activity they'll never be able to eat up to.
This is why advice based on personal anecdotes should always be taken with a grain of salt.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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!!!)
I think these are insightful comments and they resonate with me. The eating healthy thing, especially, as I started gaining because I stopped being active (I was eating a healthy diet) and didn't adjust. I continued eating my healthy diet, which was now about 500 cal per day too caloric (I became really sedentary as a result of life stress, depression, various things). Once I realized I really had gained and was gaining--after being in denial for a while--I jumped into "will deal with it tomorrow" and then started eating even more because, eh, I'd already ruined everything, everything was horrible, it didn't matter, and I couldn't deal with it right now. (But for a ridiculously long time I thought that if I just stuck to "healthy" foods -- meaning nutritionally dense, less processed, blah, blah -- I'd naturally eat the right number of calories, because that's how it was supposed to work.)
A bit off the topic, but it's one reason why it drives me crazy when people assume that you have to know nothing about nutrition and have been eating poorly (nutritionally, not calorie wise) to have gained weight. Yeah, not great to be careless with the olive oil, but if I were larger that number of calories wouldn't have made such a difference, at least not so quickly, as it would be a lower percentage of my diet.
NOT saying it's harder for short people or whining, but I found that a bit enlightening, maybe, with respect to how some men (not all men) on the site seem to assume that if you got fat you must have been eating lots of nutritionally poor high cal foods and not know a thing about nutrition. Or that if you eat healthfully you won't be able to overeat.
Yup! For tall men, it really is hard to overeat when eating a "healthy" diet. If your active TDEE is 4000 calories as opposed to 2000 (I barely break 1900 even after a tough gym sesh) you will find it hard to overeat if you eat healthy.
I've been on long backpacking trips (8-15 hilly miles a day carrying 40% of my weight on my back) and long bike trips (60-100 miles a day on a fully loaded bike) and I've managed to gain a little weight. My fellow male travelers have lost weight, without fail, even though they were eating more than I am. There is no amount of activity that I can't out-eat; for some men, there are some levels of activity they'll never be able to eat up to.
This is why advice based on personal anecdotes should always be taken with a grain of salt.
You shared a personal anecdote to illustrate how it is hard for tall men to overeat, and then you say that personal anecdotes should be taken with a grain of salt. That's a bit ironic I'd say. As a tall man, I would have no problem throwing down 4000 calories(or much more to be honest) but I am also carrying quite a bit more mass that I need to fuel. I am not overweight because I am extremely active and work my tail off, but also because I make smart food choices. I don't understand why people on here are always pointing at others and saying "its easier for them than it is me." How is that helping you any? Maybe you should just focus on yourself and not worry so much about what other people are doing.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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!!!)
I think these are insightful comments and they resonate with me. The eating healthy thing, especially, as I started gaining because I stopped being active (I was eating a healthy diet) and didn't adjust. I continued eating my healthy diet, which was now about 500 cal per day too caloric (I became really sedentary as a result of life stress, depression, various things). Once I realized I really had gained and was gaining--after being in denial for a while--I jumped into "will deal with it tomorrow" and then started eating even more because, eh, I'd already ruined everything, everything was horrible, it didn't matter, and I couldn't deal with it right now. (But for a ridiculously long time I thought that if I just stuck to "healthy" foods -- meaning nutritionally dense, less processed, blah, blah -- I'd naturally eat the right number of calories, because that's how it was supposed to work.)
A bit off the topic, but it's one reason why it drives me crazy when people assume that you have to know nothing about nutrition and have been eating poorly (nutritionally, not calorie wise) to have gained weight. Yeah, not great to be careless with the olive oil, but if I were larger that number of calories wouldn't have made such a difference, at least not so quickly, as it would be a lower percentage of my diet.
NOT saying it's harder for short people or whining, but I found that a bit enlightening, maybe, with respect to how some men (not all men) on the site seem to assume that if you got fat you must have been eating lots of nutritionally poor high cal foods and not know a thing about nutrition. Or that if you eat healthfully you won't be able to overeat.
Yup! For tall men, it really is hard to overeat when eating a "healthy" diet. If your active TDEE is 4000 calories as opposed to 2000 (I barely break 1900 even after a tough gym sesh) you will find it hard to overeat if you eat healthy.
I've been on long backpacking trips (8-15 hilly miles a day carrying 40% of my weight on my back) and long bike trips (60-100 miles a day on a fully loaded bike) and I've managed to gain a little weight. My fellow male travelers have lost weight, without fail, even though they were eating more than I am. There is no amount of activity that I can't out-eat; for some men, there are some levels of activity they'll never be able to eat up to.
This is why advice based on personal anecdotes should always be taken with a grain of salt.
You shared a personal anecdote to illustrate how it is hard for tall men to overeat, and then you say that personal anecdotes should be taken with a grain of salt. That's a bit ironic I'd say. As a tall man, I would have no problem throwing down 4000 calories(or much more to be honest) but I am also carrying quite a bit more mass that I need to fuel. I am not overweight because I am extremely active and work my tail off, but also because I make smart food choices. I don't understand why people on here are always pointing at others and saying "its easier for them than it is me." How is that helping you any? Maybe you should just focus on yourself and not worry so much about what other people are doing.
Lol yes rather ironic if you look at it that way. My point was more that bodies are so different we cannot extrapolate one persons experience to others, using me as one extreme and a tall friend as another. I'm not trying to have a sob story, just telling it like it is. But well fine if you think my comment warranted that level of snark in response.4 -
not_a_runner wrote: »I'm 5'1'', 178 lbs (I'm sure I get some extra cals just because I'm heavier) but I've averaging 2300 right now and my weight is trending down. I'm guessing maintenance is 2500+
Can't say I've ever felt personally victimized because of my height lol. I also lift heavy several days per week.
ETA- Oh, and I'm hypothyroid.
*Shrug emoji*
Update: Maintaining on 2700, still 5'1''3 -
nvm0
-
I'm 4'11" and could easily feel fine on 800-1000 calories daily. I'd imagine just as taller people tend to wear larger shoe sizes and clothing (larger features), they'd also have larger stomaches to fill. I don't feel gypped because of my height...3
-
5Months2fit wrote: »I'm 4'11" and could easily feel fine on 800-1000 calories daily. I'd imagine just as taller people tend to wear larger shoe sizes and clothing (larger features), they'd also have larger stomaches to fill. I don't feel gypped because of my height...
This thread is several months old. Were you just looking for a chance to promote the fact that you eat below the minimum calorie recommendation for women?7 -
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 am 5'9, although I am not short, I don't feel that I am tall and my maintenance is at 3000 calories. Height means *kitten* all, it's how much you burn.6 -
The fact that shorties have a higher power to weight ratio and lower center of gravity evens up any disadvantages.3
-
I'm 5"8 and often wonder how short petite women manage on low calories and not be ravenous. But as mentioned above, the less mass one has, the less energy one needs, correct?
I'm taller and heavier, so i need more food/energy. But what about appetite.. My daughter is only 5"2 and can put me to shame at a buffet restaurant lol3 -
Unfortunately appetite, satiation point, hunger, height, and normal BMI weight, don't always coincide.
There are probably (I have no research) just as many shorter obese women as there are average, or tall.
Also, unfortunately, in general, a normal restaurant meal will take a short woman further over her maintenance calories than it would an average or tall woman with the same activity level and BMI.
There would be a 20 lbs weight difference at a 22 BMI between someone 5'0 and 5'5. The shorter woman would get 1409 cals a day, the taller, 1614.
At 5'1 and a 1600 cals average I maintain easily, and am, most of the time, satiated. The occasional overage takes care of its self over time.
NB: my weight gain to 130lbs was an anomaly, I had spent most of my life at 100-105 lbs, so I am nit eating any less than I did most of my life.
I think there is a big difference there. If I had maintained in an over weight catagory most of my life, I would have, probably, found it very hard to adjust down to 1600 cals- and felt shafted.
I also look at my 200lbs, 6'3 SO meals and wonder how he can manage to eat so much and not feel sick, no envy over quantity of food.
Cheers, h.6 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I'm 5"8 and often wonder how short petite women manage on low calories and not be ravenous. But as mentioned above, the less mass one has, the less energy one needs, correct?
I'm taller and heavier, so i need more food/energy. But what about appetite.. My daughter is only 5"2 and can put me to shame at a buffet restaurant lol
Speaking for myself (4'10") - I don't have to worry about hunger (unless I've made some particularly poor macro choices during the day, or I really have been active and out long enough that day that the extra calories are warranted); but temptation and extremely calorie-dense foods are a problem (not easy to stop at 3 chicken wings for instance, and it's lot harder to make that glass or 2 of wine fit when out dancing; and if presented with a slice of tres leches cake - no way am I passing up that wonderful block of fat, more fat, and carbs).3 -
I'm 5' 3" and female, age 23. I recently compared BMRs with two friends who are much taller than I am (one is male, one female), and they were shocked at how low mine was compared to theirs, given that I'm a good 10+ years younger. Of course BMR is not TDEE, but it's a starting point, especially since we all have sedentary jobs. They both had the experience of being able to eat "whatever they wanted" at my age, so they assumed it was the same for me. Since my body needs fewer calories, I suppose it should also demand fewer calories, but the real challenges in weight management for me are not about hunger but about lifestyle and choices.2
-
The one major downside is that, at least in America, society is made with taller people in mind.
Many restaurant meal portions can reasonably fit in a taller person's daily caloric allowance, but usually they'll only fit in mine if it's the only meal I eat that day... 2 -
As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P3 -
As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I also have a 29" inseam (short man) and 2.5 mph feels slow to me. I don't switch from walking to jogging until >4mph. So we may be all different.1 -
Good heavens I would love an extra 2" on my inseam. Mine is 27"
My average walking pace is 3mph, race walking just over 4, and window shopping, snail pace.
My SO has a 34" inseam so he can really cover the ground with far fewer steps.
I have been with him a long time so he knows to slow down.
Cheers, h.0 -
Hmmm...I’m over 6 foot tall and my calories are under 1500 a day.0
-
TheMothership71 wrote: »Hmmm...I’m over 6 foot tall and my calories are under 1500 a day.
How much weight are you trying to lose?
What rate of loss did you select?4 -
TheMothership71 wrote: »Hmmm...I’m over 6 foot tall and my calories are under 1500 a day.
Hmm, I'm 5'5", age 62, and can maintain a weight in the 120s on well over 2000.
What do either of these things have to do with short people?
@WinoGelato is trying to helpful, to her credit . . . I'm just confused.3 -
As a short lady, I do get annoyed at how MFP logs exercise. It tells me that 2.5 miles per hour is "slow". I have a 29" inseam - I have to move those little legs awfully fast to go 2.5 miles an hour! At 3 mph, I'm already jogging. My husband has long legs; I can match him footfall for footfall, but I'm always lagging behind because my stride is so much shorter.
I am not "slow"! I just have to take little steps :-P
I wish that I could wear 29" leg jeans without folding the ankle over several times. I have serious short legs, but still manage to walk at well >5km/hr (3.1mph) as my everyday pace and don't start jogging until 6.8km/hr (4.25mph) as measured on a dreadmill. No idea what speed I start running at outside, but I'm guessing it's around 8km/hr from my strava stats and faster if I'm running short distance (5km or less). And I do count myself as slow, I'm a long distance plodder at heart.1
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
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions