How does being short equal having to eat less calories?
janessafantasma
Posts: 312 Member
I've noticed this trend amongst the short ladies and this belief that since we are short, that affords us less calories?? Can someone explain how this works because I don't quite understand.
When I was swimming for my varsity high school team and the USA swim team, I ate well over 2000 calories, and I've always been able to maintain a weight eating around 1400 calories. My MFP has me at a goal of eating 1680 calories, which I sometimes go over because of exercise, and I have lost 25 pounds. So, how exactly does my being short mean I have to restrict calories to lose weight?
Seriously, someone legitemately explain this reasoning to me.
When I was swimming for my varsity high school team and the USA swim team, I ate well over 2000 calories, and I've always been able to maintain a weight eating around 1400 calories. My MFP has me at a goal of eating 1680 calories, which I sometimes go over because of exercise, and I have lost 25 pounds. So, how exactly does my being short mean I have to restrict calories to lose weight?
Seriously, someone legitemately explain this reasoning to me.
0
Replies
-
typically, you'll have less mass to maintain.0
-
Body weight will be the bigger factor, and generally, smaller people weigh less.0
-
I see no reasoning behind this. Simply because activity level won't be the same amongst any given group of people, same with metabolic rate, medical factors, and a whole slue of things that can affect weight gain and loss. Not to mention body types. An ectomorph, no matter the height, is more than likely going to me smaller than an endomorph. Weightwise, I've see plenty of "skinny" people weigh more than "fat" people, though they eat the same. Being small, I feel, has nothing to do with eating 1200 calories or less. That's yet another sweeping brushstroke one can't paint people with. Friend A will more than probably NOT lose weight the same way Friends B-Z will, or have the same body composition, or lifestyle, or caloric needs.
...unless they're all clones.0 -
So, since I have more mass to lose and should have less mass, I should lose more mass by restricting calories so that I have less mass and then my calorie intake will match my mass?0
-
So, since I have more mass to lose and should have less mass, I should lose more mass by restricting calories so that I have less mass and then my calorie intake will match my mass?
So many things I could say to this... SO MANY. MUST NOT BREAK RULES.... :laugh:
0 -
I think it just depends on each individual and their activity level. Also, everybody's body works differently so there shouldn't be a specific number of calories based on just a person's height. I'm 5'2.5 and I can maintain my weight by eating around 1800-1900 calories a day. I currently weigh 133-135 pounds. And thats with just exercising 1-2 times a week. I just decided that I want to try to lose these last 10 pounds so I am kicking up my exercise to 5-6 days a week. Its all about figuring out what works for your body.0
-
I don't think it necessarily does. I think it's more based on your lean mass and level of activity. I'm about 5'3.5 and to maintain I can eat roughly 2400 calories and sometimes even then that's a deficit. Like on Saturdays I run 13 miles and I generally burrn upwards of 3400 TDEE that day meaning I could eat that much and not gain weight.0
-
I don't think it necessarily does. I think it's more based on your lean mass and level of activity. I'm about 5'3.5 and to maintain I can eat roughly 2400 calories and sometimes even then that's a deficit. Like on Saturdays I run 13 miles and I generally burrn upwards of 3400 TDEE that day meaning I could eat that much and not gain weight.
Holy moly, I wish I could run ONE mile. That is dedication! I'm just not a runner, but I am a swimmer and a biker, ha.0 -
So, since I have more mass to lose and should have less mass, I should lose more mass by restricting calories so that I have less mass and then my calorie intake will match my mass?
So many things I could say to this... SO MANY. MUST NOT BREAK RULES.... :laugh:
Glad it at least illicited some giggles!0 -
When I mention my height and why I have to eat less, it is usually because a higher weight for me is still what others consider a low weight because I'm so much shorter than the average. It takes fewer calories to maintain 110 lbs than 140 lbs.0
-
When I mention my height and why I have to eat less, it is usually because a higher weight for me is still what others consider a low weight because I'm so much shorter than the average. It takes fewer calories to maintain 110 lbs than 140 lbs.
I think it's very dependent on how one chooses to maintain. When I was 115 lbs and working out all the time, I still consumed around 1700-2000 calories a day and I'm only 4'11. Even when I was under 100 lbs, I was still eating over 1200 calories. This is why I'm so confused by the idea that a shorter person has to consume less calories to maintain or lose.0 -
On average, a shorter person will weight less than a taller person. Less weight = lower bmr. Lower bmr = fewer calories to maintain. Nothing complicated about that. A 5' person who eats the same diet and exercises as much as a 6' person who maintains a healthy weight will steadily gain weight.0
-
On average, a shorter person will weight less than a taller person. Less weight = lower bmr. Lower bmr = fewer calories to maintain. Nothing complicated about that. A 5' person who eats the same diet and exercises as much as a 6' person who maintains a healthy weight will steadily gain weight.
So then how did I maintain a weight of 115 lbs while eating up to 2000 calories for several years? I did not start to gain weight until a series of several health issues landed me in the hospital and I was dealing with severe and almost unmanageable body pain. I'm fairly certain that under the petite guidelines of eating, 2000 calories is WAY over the limit. I have never been given a single calculation of less than 1400 calories per day regardless of weight I input based on my height.0 -
Metabolism has got to play a part.0
-
Because you were exercising a ton.So then how did I maintain a weight of 115 lbs while eating up to 2000 calories for several years?
A 6' tall, 180 lb. person exercising as much as you were then would probably have to take in more like 3000 calories to maintain.0 -
Because you were exercising a ton.So then how did I maintain a weight of 115 lbs while eating up to 2000 calories for several years?
A 6' tall, 180 lb. person exercising as much as you were then would probably have to take in more like 3000 calories to maintain.
This is the thing I get, that some people have to eat more or less depending on their bodies and physical activity levels, the point I was trying to get across is that I don't understand how short people HAVE to eat less than 1200 calories a day to lose weight, I have seen such a generalization of this statement and it just seems absurd. Even with not working out I can maintain weight at 1400 calories.
Honestly, I was just really irritated by some of the irrationality of some of the statements I was seeing, Thanks for the input!0 -
In general, there is less of short people so it takes less energy to keep them going.
OP, you may or may not be an exception to the rule. My guess is you are NOT an exception because you were exercising so much. When you stopped, your caloric needs plummeted and you gained weight.
Regardless, your anecdote does not negate the fact that in general, small people should eat less.0 -
Even with not working out I can maintain weight at 1400 calories.
This to me sums it up--with no working out, you *maintained* at 1400 calories. Many shorties here want to lose.0 -
For BMR:
The largest variable contribution to BMR is muscle mass. Shorter people have less muscle mass than a taller person of equal LBM%. A more muscular shorter person may have a higher BMR than a less muscular taller person.
For exercise: particularly for weight bearing exercise, it requires less energy to move a smaller body, F=ma and all that.0 -
For BMR:
The largest variable contribution to BMR is muscle mass. Shorter people have less muscle mass than a taller person of equal LBM%. A more muscular shorter person may have a higher BMR than a less muscular taller person.
For exercise: particularly for weight bearing exercise, it requires less energy to move a smaller body, F=ma and all that.
Could you simplify this explanation for me? I'm still getting used to all this fitness talk and science and it confuses me.
Also, to the other poster, I eat close to 1700 calories a day, and I've lost 25 lbs and I'm only working out at a moderate level. I am looking to lose weight and I have been actively losing weight eating that many calories a day.0 -
For BMR:
The largest variable contribution to BMR is muscle mass. Shorter people have less muscle mass than a taller person of equal LBM%. A more muscular shorter person may have a higher BMR than a less muscular taller person.
For exercise: particularly for weight bearing exercise, it requires less energy to move a smaller body, F=ma and all that.
Could you simplify this explanation for me? I'm still getting used to all this fitness talk and science and it confuses me.
Also, to the other poster, I eat close to 1700 calories a day, and I've lost 25 lbs and I'm only working out at a moderate level. I am looking to lose weight and I have been actively losing weight eating that many calories a day.
Sure- Your muscle uses calories. Larger people generally have more muscle, so they generally burn more muscle sitting around doing nothing than a short person does. The exception to the rule would be a short person that has a lot of muscle mass compared to a large person that has little muscle mass. Men have more muscle than women, so a man will burn more calories than an equally sized woman. Your BMR is the number of calories it takes for your body to perform life-sustaining operation while doing no activity- as if you were in a coma, for example.
For exercise- there's some variation again based on muscle mass, just like sitting around doing nothing. Think of two equally efficient cars- one a large SUV and one a little hatchback. It takes more gas to move the SUV around just because it's bigger. Calories are your fuel. It takes more calories to move a bigger person around than a small person. All exercise calories are in addition to BMR calories.0 -
Because you were exercising a ton.So then how did I maintain a weight of 115 lbs while eating up to 2000 calories for several years?
A 6' tall, 180 lb. person exercising as much as you were then would probably have to take in more like 3000 calories to maintain.
This is the thing I get, that some people have to eat more or less depending on their bodies and physical activity levels, the point I was trying to get across is that I don't understand how short people HAVE to eat less than 1200 calories a day to lose weight, I have seen such a generalization of this statement and it just seems absurd. Even with not working out I can maintain weight at 1400 calories.
Honestly, I was just really irritated by some of the irrationality of some of the statements I was seeing, Thanks for the input!
Ooh, there is a big, big difference between "eating less" and "eating less than 1200".
Most short people shouldn't have to eat less than 1200 to lose. But they'll still have to eat less than a taller person with equivalent body composition and activity level, ON AVERAGE.0 -
Activity levels play a part and the amount of muscle mass you have. I'm 5ft 4 but can lose weight on 1800-2000 cals a day because I have alot of muscle and exercise regularly.0
-
The predicted BMR of a 4'-10" woman age 30 weighing 115 lbs is 1131 cals/day. If she chooses the sedentary setting her total energy expenditure will be 1360. If she wished to see a target 1lb/week loss then the allowed calories will need to be well below 1200.the point I was trying to get across is that I don't understand how short people HAVE to eat less than 1200 calories a day to lose weight,
So you are probably seeing low BMR people with sedentary lifestyles looking for decent loss rates, which inevitably puts them below 1200.
1200 is a suggested minimum for the typical woman, small people will need less and in any case the 1200 itself is not universally recognised by authorities.0 -
It's very simple. Every cell in your body needs energy (calories) to stay alive. The calories that you burn keeping your cells alive is your basal metabolic rate (BMR). Bigger people have more cells = need more energy to keep their cells alive (higher BMR). Smaller people have fewer cells = need fewer calories to keep their cells alive (lower BMR). Muscle cells need about 6x more calories than fat cells to stay alive, so greater muscle mass = need more calories to keep your cells alive (higher BMR).
On top of that, the bigger and heavier you are, the more energy (calories) you'll need to move yourself around, so the bigger you are, the more calories you will burn doing pretty much anything.
This explains why you will always get a small decrease in how many calories you burn each day, when you lose fat, as you are lighter and you have fewer cells to keep alive. However you can offset that by building muscle (muscle cells burn more calories just staying alive) and by doing more exercise, because even if you're small and don't burn as many calories per minute while exercising, you can still burn more calories by moving more.
I'm short and at a healthy weight for my height, my TDEE is about 1700-1800, and my limit for how many calories I won't eat below is 1300. (usually I aim for 1500 for slow, steady fat loss) However these numbers of calories would be insufficient for bigger people, and for some people they would be starvation level calories.
It might seem unfair that you're smaller and need fewer calories, but that's just how it is and ignoring it and eating the calories of a larger person will not get anyone anywhere. The plus side is you can eat more by doing more exercise.0 -
You're a prime example of what my question was, why restrict so much? I watch my calories but I don't significantly restrict them to lose weight. I badly worded my OP, and definitely get what everyone is saying, I was just confused over the amount of restrictions some of the shorter ladies seemed to be placing on themselves.0
-
Perhaps there's a bit of confusion of NET vs GROSS calories. If two people had the same weight and bf%, but were different height, the taller person could NET higher calories than the shorter person without gaining weight.
You say you ate 2000 calories but maintained because you exercised a lot, how many calories were you netting during that time? Chances are you netted lower calories than a taller person of similar weight/bf% for maintenance.0 -
You're a prime example of what my question was, why restrict so much? I watch my calories but I don't significantly restrict them to lose weight. I badly worded my OP, and definitely get what everyone is saying, I was just confused over the amount of restrictions some of the shorter ladies seemed to be placing on themselves.
My basal metabolic rate is around 1300 calories, and I have a decent amount of lean body mass for my size too. (I'm large build and quite muscular, although not as muscular as I'd like to be eventually). My daily activities take my calorie burn up to 1700-1800 calories. These are facts, and they are where the calorie predictors say they should be (I don't have issues like thyroid etc slowing my metabolism). I can't go into cloud cuckoo land and pretend that I'll lose fat while eating 2000 cals/day. I'll gain fat on that much. Eating more will speed your metabolism up to the point where it should be according to your height and weight if it's been slowed due to undereating, but you can't push your metabolism up higher than that by eating even more, once you get to that point, you will store the excess. If you're not doing enough weight training or eating enough protein for the extra weight to go on as muscle, it'll be stored as fat.
Anyway I don't feel restricted on the calories that I eat at, in fact I have a problem eating enough. 1500 is a small deficit for me, and results in about 0.5lb fat loss a week. 1700-1800 I maintain. If I did more exercise, I could eat more, and if I built up muscle a bit more I could, but the last time I tried to build muscle (which requires eating at a surplus, i.e. 2000 cals for me) I simply could not eat that much. I will try again in the future and I'll have to include more calorie dense foods in order to eat that much. The numbers might seem low to you but honestly I'm not restricting myself and I feel satisfied on the amount I eat.
Also, height is not the only factor, a woman of my height who still has a lot of fat to lose can and should eat more than what I currently eat. As you lose fat, your BMR goes down and you need to adjust your intake accordingly. If you're doing this right, the only thing you're losing is fat, so your BMR only goes down so much. If you crash diet and lose lean body mass, then your BMR goes down a lot more and that's where you run into problems caused by undereating. I'm not in danger of that unless I go below 1300. Usually I eat more like 1500 calories, way above my BMR.0 -
Well I'm very petite and in order to maintain my weight I have to eat less then 1,000.
( less then 5 feet tall. )
I only burn about 1,100 calories just sitting around.. it sucks! ( I gain on 1,200. really incredibly stupid ) I do exercise more though now so I can eat more and not have to suffer :P0 -
I'm almost 5'4". My estimated BMR is 1380. If I were the exact same weight but 5'0", my BMR would be 1316. 64 calorie difference. If I was 6'0" and the same weight, my BMR would be 1507. Almost 200 calories more than if I were 5'0". Short people generally burn fewer calories, same for older people. Next year my BMR will be lower even at the same weight.
Everyone has to "restrict" calories to lose weight. Meaning your calories have to be under your Total Daily Energy Expenditure, which is related to BMR. A person who is 5'0" does need to eat less than a 6'0" of the same weight to lose or maintain. Not a LOT less, but less.
(Seems like about 75 calories difference for moderate exercise)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
http://www.quickbmr.com/what-is-tdee.html 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions