Short females (under 5")? Could you please share your maintainence calories and how active you are?

Height
Activity levels
Calories/macros
«1

Replies

  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,207 Member
    edited June 2019
    Fraction of an inch under 5'0"
    Lightly Active - I work from home full time, so I sit a lot, but I am also up many times an hour moving around. Active in my non-working hours as well as we have 3 little kids at home. I had my activity level set to Moderately Active before I started working (when I was a full time mom).
    I'm breastfeeding still, so I get an extra 350-400 calories per day.
    I work out 3x a week for 1-1.5 hours, about 75-80% weight lifting and some HIIT, in addition to warm up and cool down.
    My base calories MFP gives me are:
    1380 NEAT
    +381 Breastfeeding
    = 1781 Non Workout days
    +150-200 workouts
    =190-1980 Workout Days

    I weigh ~114lbs, size 2 pants, S in shirts.

    EDIT for macros

    I aim for 40/30/30 Carbs/Fat/Protein. Realistically I usually hit about 25% protein, but I'm trying to work out that. Fat and carbs kind of balance each other out in my mind.
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 3,308 Member
    Most of us petites are 5'2 or under. Not sure how many under 5' maintaining gals are here.
  • hotel4dogs
    hotel4dogs Posts: 72 Member
    edited June 2019
    I'm 5'2" so if that's too tall, ignore this.
    I'm 61 years old, female.
    I have 101# of lean body mass, it's measured monthly and pretty consistent. That's a fair amount for my height.
    Activity is about 9 hours a week of intense cardio, plus 7 hours a week of lighter cardio.
    Due to medical issues I've been working with a registered dietician at a big University hospital nearby, and she figures my maintenance calories to be roughly 1500-1600 per day.
    Based on my weight staying the same, I'm sure she's right.
    For macros, about 45% protein, 30% carbs, 25% fats. But I have a medical condition which requires the extra protein.
  • cnjg6677
    cnjg6677 Posts: 176 Member
    I am 4”11 but not sure if I can help much since I am still trying to figure out maintance calories mfp gives me 1200 for both loss and maintance and I’m set to sedentary
  • Gisel2015
    Gisel2015 Posts: 4,019 Member
    I am 4 feet 10 inches, wt. between 98 and 100lbs, and old (low BMR). My macros are 35% prot. and carbs and 30% fat. Most of the time I am above in the fat department and below in the carbs, and right on with the protein.

    My maintenance calories are about 1450 (moderate active), plus some exercise calories (strength training, moderate cardio, yoga). I have been in maintenance for 9 years and I am not very strict with the logging.
  • stationlouisa
    stationlouisa Posts: 150 Member
    edited June 2019
    cnjg6677 wrote: »
    I am 4”11 but not sure if I can help much since I am still trying to figure out maintance calories mfp gives me 1200 for both loss and maintance and I’m set to sedentary

    Hi, I think mfp will never tell anyone to eat less than 1200cals. I eat 1000 when loosing so I think 1200 would be good to maintain. Oh and I am 152cm 5'
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,868 Member
    I'm 4"11 and weigh around 95 pounds.
    I am very active (average 20,000 or so steps a day)
    NEAT calories are between 1500-1600 and after exercise between 2000-2200 depending on how active I am.
    Macro spilt is 40/35/25 carbs/fat/protein
  • lbking49
    lbking49 Posts: 1 Member
    SO glad to find this thread! 4'9" 102.7 So in losing mode. I have lost with 1200 cal in the past but as soon as I go to 1300 I gain. 63yo so low Metabolic rate but am trying to get more walking in for heart and BP.
    You guys exercise a lot. proud to get 30-40 min brisk walk 3-4 days a week. Guess that is is key to do it daily. Started a new job a year ago that is more sedentary and gained 5 pounds!
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    I posted this recently on a different thread but I thought I posted it here, so I went back and found it because I think it relates to this thread:

    As a fellow shortie (5'0"), I find it critical to stay very active in order to maintain my weight. If I become sedentary, the pounds go on quickly because eating the required portions of food is a huge challenge in a world that is centered around larger people. My solution is to increase the number of calories I can consume to put it more in line with what "normal" people eat. If I did not stay active, my maintenance calories would be somewhere around 1400 or less. Forever. Where is the fun in that?
  • eleanorhawkins
    eleanorhawkins Posts: 1,301 Member
    lporter229 wrote: »
    I posted this recently on a different thread but I thought I posted it here, so I went back and found it because I think it relates to this thread:

    As a fellow shortie (5'0"), I find it critical to stay very active in order to maintain my weight. If I become sedentary, the pounds go on quickly because eating the required portions of food is a huge challenge in a world that is centered around larger people. My solution is to increase the number of calories I can consume to put it more in line with what "normal" people eat. If I did not stay active, my maintenance calories would be somewhere around 1400 or less. Forever. Where is the fun in that?

    This is so totally me.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,207 Member
    lporter229 wrote: »
    I posted this recently on a different thread but I thought I posted it here, so I went back and found it because I think it relates to this thread:

    As a fellow shortie (5'0"), I find it critical to stay very active in order to maintain my weight. If I become sedentary, the pounds go on quickly because eating the required portions of food is a huge challenge in a world that is centered around larger people. My solution is to increase the number of calories I can consume to put it more in line with what "normal" people eat. If I did not stay active, my maintenance calories would be somewhere around 1400 or less. Forever. Where is the fun in that?

    It does suck living in a world built for taller people. The top shelf of cabinets is no-man's-land for me. I am limited in how comfortable I can get driving by the limits of how close the car seat will go to the pedals (I just run mine up to the closest every time, it's as good as it gets)....And yes, portion sizes, even "correct" (not oversized, like restaurants) portion sizes are on the higher end for short people.

    I dread the day I stop breastfeeding. I am already working on being more active to compensate.
  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,448 Member
    edited June 2019
    jrwms714 wrote: »
    I am 5'0" even ... I am also 72 years old with a body that has always been chunky/muscular from the hips on down while very tiny in shoulders, rib cage, and waist - a perfect pear shape. I have never ever been in the BMI range for my height, due to this, even when I weighed 110 in high school and throughout my 20s and 30s, and was a size 4 Petite. (I have ranted about the BMI and what it never takes into account elsewhere on here, so I won't do that now.) I have been in maintenance for 4.5 years. I currently weigh 136.5, which is far better than the 167 where I started when I joined MFP. I work out 5 days a week - Pilates, strength training, and cardio. My maintenance calories run between 1500-1800. Some days are higher if I have worked out exceptionally hard. I am satisfied with the range that I have set for myself. When I went lower than this weight, I did not look healthy and did not feel well at all. I currently wear P6 or 8 in jeans, which satisfies me, for sure. For those who are petite 5'0" or close to it, I know that this weight sounds high. Bear in mind that not all petites are the same body type, and that some of this means more muscle added to what was already muscular. And there is some evidence (although controversial) that in seniors, a slight (SLIGHT) amount of extra weight may be beneficial. Sorry if this sounds defensive. Just trying to let the OP and others know that petites come in a range of body types ... clothing manufacturers, weight charts, and BMI's just don't seem to take that into account.

    I don't disagree with your advice overall, but as I am just 2 inches taller, I noticed a glaring error. Unless there's a typo there, 110 lbs for someone 5'0" is well within a healthy weight by BMI standards (~95-128 lbs for 5'0"). You're less than 10 lbs out of range and only 0.5 lbs off for the U.S Army's Basic Combat Training, so your weight didn't strike me as high.
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,207 Member
    Glorianna7 wrote: »
    If you tell a 6 ft, tall woman, it's okay to eat 1200 calories that's 17.14 calories for every inch tall she is. Then why isn't it alright to let a 5 ft. tall woman eat the same as long as she eats nutritious foods and no junk? (Which would be for the shorter woman, 60 inches tall X 17.14 calorie's per inch tall = 1028.40 calories per day.) It is possible to get 80-90% of your nutrients in the lower intake of calories if you know nutrition. I realize most people don't/won't eat highly nutritious foods and that's why they have diet and health problems. I think 90% of the reason why most websites demand that everyone eat 1200 calories is, so they don't get sued.

    People should focus on the 40 Essential Vitamins, Minerals and Nutrients per day and calories second.

    While 1200 calories is practically a starvation diet for the tall woman, it's close to maintenance for the shorter woman. I guess we'll have to fudge it with these sites. If I eat 780 calories of high nutrition, they won't be happy, but if I add a piece of chocolate cake that would make them happy. Go Figure.

    Height is only a part of the picture. A 5'10 woman has the same relative brain size, the endocrine system is relatively the same, etc - yes, height translates into more bone and muscle mass, but that is about it. The heart will be fractionally bigger to pump blood slightly farther, but not by much. The liver, kidneys, etc - all just "adult" size.

    The 1200 calories is for basic bodily functions, not just maintaining height and muscle mass. I'm sure some sedentary 5' tall women could probably afford to eat 1100 or so, but 1200 is a good safe limit for women and ins't going to hurt petite women.