Do smaller people burn fewer calories?

barefoot76
barefoot76 Posts: 314 Member
edited November 11 in Fitness and Exercise
I had a thought the other day: I am short and so, of course, all the TDEE calculators suggest that I need fewer calories than someone taller who weighs more. That seems like common sense.

So wouldn't it also be common sense that I would burn fewer calories when working out? After all, I am lifting less (body)weight and have smaller muscles, etc. Does anyone know anything about this?

Replies

  • RTricia
    RTricia Posts: 720
    I'm curious to know also!! Great question~
  • treesloth
    treesloth Posts: 162 Member
    I would certainly think so. I take "smaller" to mean "lower mass". First, the person with lower mass exerts less energy-- fewer calories, specifically-- to move that mass, as already mentioned. Second, each cell has a certain energy need. More cells means more energy being burned, resulting in higher basal caloric burn rate. So, even when you're essentially inert, you're keeping a larger organism, and a correspondingly larger number of cells, alive. This is why people like me (a bit over 300 pounds, about 6' 6") can burn an absurd number of calories. In one hour on an elliptical trainer, I burn about 850 calories while moving at a fairly relaxed pace. I've lost almost 60 pounds by eating about 2600 calories per day.
  • urbanmyth
    urbanmyth Posts: 26 Member
    Yes. I burn very few calories at 5", 48kg and a small frame. 10 mins of intense jump rope doesn't even buy me 100 calories :(
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    Small people DO burn less calories during exercise. Pretty sure MFP calculations take this into consideration, and you are supposed to enter your weight in your HRM for it to be accurate.
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    I am 4'11'' 120 pounds and when I get 350 calories an hour, I am happy.
  • gp79
    gp79 Posts: 1,799 Member
    To compare calorie burns between two individuals assuming the same body composition, who are of different weights / sex, you've really got to look at things in terms of percentages. It's just not possible for a 4'11 110lb female to burn the same amount of calories as a 6'4 240lb male if they both go on a 5 mile run together.
  • yesthistime
    yesthistime Posts: 2,051 Member
    Yup, bigger people burn more calories because it takes more effort to move their bodies.
  • sassylilmama
    sassylilmama Posts: 1,493 Member
    For me its definitely the case. I am 5' and when I was almost 200lb I did a dvd workout that would burn over 400 cal in an hour. Now at 125 that same workout burns maybe 300, if I push.
  • janegalt37
    janegalt37 Posts: 270 Member
    Yes, smaller people burn less in any activity. I'm so lucky I'm 5' 10". I've seen the calorie goals for a 5' woman, and I wouldn't know how to begin eating so little!
  • k8blujay2
    k8blujay2 Posts: 4,941 Member
    It depends one what you are qualifying as 'small'... I am short, but obese, but I can still burn a decent amount of calories for any given activity... I really think it has to do with your metabolism and your physiology more than how big or small or short or tall.
  • blueandigo
    blueandigo Posts: 296
    Yep, which is why my fatass burns so many calories while working out lol
  • sammys1girly
    sammys1girly Posts: 1,045 Member
    At 5ft 1, 125 lbs, It stinks to work out hard and not burn as many calories as others...but I'd rather be smaller to start with, just sayin'...
  • blondejillie
    blondejillie Posts: 305 Member
    Conversely, if a very short woman walks a mile and takes twice as many steps to do so than her 6' counterpart isn't she burning more?
  • TurnLeftNow
    TurnLeftNow Posts: 171
    Yeah, they definitely burn fewer calories.

    I know there are some people on my friends list who walk the same pace I do for the same amount of time and they are burning almost double the calories. Not fair I say! :)
  • frugalmomsrock
    frugalmomsrock Posts: 1,123
    Conversely, if a very short woman walks a mile and takes twice as many steps to do so than her 6' counterpart isn't she burning more?
    This is probably the difference between at moderate rate and a brisk rate. The shorter legged person is walking briskly, while the longer legged person is only putting forth moderate effort. Therefore the heart rate is considered...
  • Kelles86
    Kelles86 Posts: 2
    How do I get the picture that everyone has saying how many more pounds they have to go?
  • mixedfeelings
    mixedfeelings Posts: 904 Member
    I think it's really down to weight rather than height but the answer would still be the same. So yeah, someone shorter would burn fewer calories but if someone who is 5'2" and 5'6" weighed the same and did the same exercise they would burn the same.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Yes. MFP takes this into consideration. I do the same exercises consistently and as my weight has gone down the calorie burn has also.
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    I would certainly think so. I take "smaller" to mean "lower mass". First, the person with lower mass exerts less energy-- fewer calories, specifically-- to move that mass, as already mentioned. Second, each cell has a certain energy need. More cells means more energy being burned, resulting in higher basal caloric burn rate. So, even when you're essentially inert, you're keeping a larger organism, and a correspondingly larger number of cells, alive. This is why people like me (a bit over 300 pounds, about 6' 6") can burn an absurd number of calories. In one hour on an elliptical trainer, I burn about 850 calories while moving at a fairly relaxed pace. I've lost almost 60 pounds by eating about 2600 calories per day.

    ^^ This.
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Yes. I burn very few calories at 5", 48kg and a small frame. 10 mins of intense jump rope doesn't even buy me 100 calories :(

    As an example, I'm 6'6" 228 lbs (103.4 kg). Per the MFP database, 10 minutes of "rope jumping, fast" takes me 207 calories versus your less than 100.

    But I think the calculation is based only on weight, not weight and height. The BMR and TDEE calculation do use both weight and height (as well as gender and age).
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    How do I get the picture that everyone has saying how many more pounds they have to go?

    At the top of this page, click on "Settings." Then put a check by "Show your MyFitnessPal ticker below each of your forum posts."
  • minigirl2
    minigirl2 Posts: 61 Member
    While I like being 5'3" and compact, it SUCKS how little I am able to eat and not gain weight.
  • frugalmomsrock
    frugalmomsrock Posts: 1,123
    I think it's really down to weight rather than height but the answer would still be the same. So yeah, someone shorter would burn fewer calories but if someone who is 5'2" and 5'6" weighed the same and did the same exercise they would burn the same.

    Provided that they have the same heart rate, probably... but then I wonder--why does an HRM as your height if it's inconsequential to the burn?
  • treetop57
    treetop57 Posts: 1,578 Member
    I don't know about HRMs, but the database here doesn't take into account height. I changed my height from 6'6" to 5' and 10 minutes of "Jumping Rope, Fast" stayed 207 calories. I'd try changing from male to female, but the system would probably send a message to all my MFP friends saying I'd had a sex change operation!
  • mixedfeelings
    mixedfeelings Posts: 904 Member
    I think it's really down to weight rather than height but the answer would still be the same. So yeah, someone shorter would burn fewer calories but if someone who is 5'2" and 5'6" weighed the same and did the same exercise they would burn the same.

    Provided that they have the same heart rate, probably... but then I wonder--why does an HRM as your height if it's inconsequential to the burn?

    Well height needs to be comparable, someone at 12 stone and 5'10" wouldn't be considered overweight where as someone 5' and 12 stone would be so there body would be different. But in the general calories burnt height vs weight the biggest factor would be weight not height - height would only factor as someone taller would weigh more.
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    I don't know about HRMs, but the database here doesn't take into account height. I changed my height from 6'6" to 5' and 10 minutes of "Jumping Rope, Fast" stayed 207 calories. I'd try changing from male to female, but the system would probably send a message to all my MFP friends saying I'd had a sex change operation!

    A Calorie is a measure of energy. It takes energy to move mass, mass is mass regardless of it's shape or density. (This is why height is not a factor). Weight = Mass. More weight moved = more calories burned. There are some other things like HR and intensity (speed) that may make a difference, but it's not anymore complicated than this.
  • amyy902
    amyy902 Posts: 290 Member
    im tall but pretty skinny. i dont burn that many calories at rest or during exercise. firstly at rest because my heart dosent have to work as hard as it would if i was bigger, and secondly im quite fit so i have to work harder for the same burnnnnn
This discussion has been closed.

Categories