to think it’s a bit depressing how little you can eat when you’re short?

I'm not 'so focused' - I have made 2 posts, and in neither did I say I think smaller people automatically have tiny appetites.

I am trying to understand why many smaller women find it hard to maintain a healthy weight.

I used to say this.

Then I hit 45.

This thread is otherwise full of my people!!!

Im sitting in a cafe now. I've just paid £15 for a sandwich and soft drink. It came with fries. I've eaten about half and feel full. Its nice and id like to eat it but I'll feel crap afterwards if I do. Its a waste. My favourite restaurant has started doing 'small plate' versions of the mains which is great.

I would feel nicely full eating the whole thing. I've felt nicely full and when I totted it up I'd had over 3000 calories in a day (included a meal out) - that was me being really careful because I knew I was eating out. I have to estimate calories and work out how much I can afford to eat, rather than rely on appetite.

My Fitbit constantly tells me I've burned off 400+ calories in a gym session and over 2500 in a day. I reckon I should knock off at least a third of what it estimates.

I need to average <1,200 consistently to lose weight and no more than 1500 for maintenance. It's not much, and I'm 5'7" and just about BMI 25. I have a sedentary job but do proper exercise five days out of seven. (Swimming, yoga, gym/weights/cardio). I try very hard to eat protein and fibre. Another difficult thing is I seem to be craving sweet stuff all the time and I never used to have a sweet tooth.

Admittedly I live alone. But I view it this way - less calories equals less food equals less shopping and therefore less cooking/cleaning and lower costs. Win win as it then allows me more time (and money) to do frankly, far more interesting things with my life.

Its the food environment we live in.

Dont worry it will get easier soon as the food industry is pivoting due to weight loss injections to provide food in much smaller portions. Restaurants will soon follow suit I’m sure and offer “small” adult mains.

With food costs rising manufacturers will drop portion sizes. I reckon us short people will end up being better off than tall people when food gets more expensive and portion sizes drop.

Another negative of being small (to joint the shortie moanfest) is that any weight gain really shows. My tall friend will say 'I've put on a stone' and look exactly the same. If I put on a stone I look like weeble.

@BringBackCatsEyes I'm not sure why you seem so focused on the assumption that smaller people automatically have tiny appetites. Surely the number of posts on this thread suggests that those of us under 5ft 3 aren't magically hardwired to feel full on chicken salads and grapes.

I saw a tiktok where a guy was asking what short women ate to lose weight (after he realised his extreme cut was more than his wife's maintenance) one of the answers was 'bell peppers and tears' that hit home!

They naturally have more muscle.

I'm 5ft 3, always been active, and my food intake reflected that as I needed the energy. Now at 51, my metabolism has slowed, despite still being very active; however, I have significantly increased my muscle mass over the last year or two, and my food intake has increased again.

Same here. I’m 5’6 and I only burn 1500 cals per day (I’m disabled). I have to starve myself to lose weight.

Im sitting in a cafe now. I've just paid £15 for a sandwich and soft drink. It came with fries. I've eaten about half and feel full. Its nice and id like to eat it but I'll feel crap afterwards if I do. Its a waste. My favourite restaurant has started doing 'small plate' versions of the mains which is great.

Do you feel hungry? If not then it’s fine, no?

True. I'm 5'2, early 40s and have found it difficult to shed weight after my 2nd DC. I've been doing dumbbells and hula-hoop for a year. I have not really lost weight, but definitely gained muscle mass and look better, esp. in my midriff. I tend to gain 2kg during summer holidays when I visit my home country with kids as I can't resist my home food and then try to shed it after coming back through simple tricks, like just 2 table spoons of brown rice with half a plate of a salad and home made chicken curry. Unfortunately I have to forget about snacks, try eating grapes, carrots and gherkins instead.

Yes!
I have thought this several times, I need a total of 2000 calories a day just to maintain weight, 1750 to lose.
I do have sensory issues with food so it's not easy to keep under 2000 due to my limited diet.
I drink my daily calories and it feels unfair. I know it's my body and it's only my choices what make it that way, but I don't want to only drink 2 cups of coffee a day, and several pints of water. I drink squash, but my normal instant coffees (I do probably drink 6/7 a day) push my calories straight over before I even think about a piece of toast.
I'm only in my early 30s, by the time I get to menopause I'll need to just inhale the smell of coffee to avoid calories.
It's miserable, I wanna eat a biscuit and not gain 2lb.

It's depressing how little I can eat at menopause as a fairly fit 5'7" 50 year old woman to stay normal BMI . A lot less than my body/brain thinks I need, that's for sure.

Oh gosh, I never really knew this. I'm 5'8, it never occurred to me that smaller women had a smaller calorie allowance. What a bummer.

I would gain a pound a week on 2k calories a day

Im not even short!! Im 5.5 and old (er)

Absolutely agree with this.
NHS and food manufacturers still pushing out that adults need 2000 calories a day. I cba to work it out but how tall would a 'healthy weight' woman with average physical activity, need to be, to have 2000 calories a day and not gain weight?
When I realised how low calories I needed to live on and adjusted my diet, I had so many people telling me I couldn't possibly live on 1200 calories a day.

I find it much easier to just accept that I can't have a hot chocolate etc than work out when I can have one. That's just the way it is now,

I think I've donated my metabolism to my hollow-legged teenagers who have the physique of drinking straws.
The 6ft of husband who seems to burn 33% more calories both to exist and whem exercising also does not help.

I have an active job, run and do weights, but it tends to average out at about 300 active calories per day because you can't max out every single day, plus life happens, illness, injury holidays, being off routine... A few days ago I was doing a deep clean of the house clocking up 12,000 steps of movement through the day... and apparently only 136 active calories burned all day 🙄 I'm sure DH burns that by blowing his nose 🤔

It feels like there is little else to give short of living only on salad and protein, and being out of sync with the family. I also bonk out quite easily with strategies like intermittent fasting. My general habits got me to 40 with no bother, including losing the two rounds of babyweight. It's frustrating me, but I don't want to have to replace all my clothes and feel heavy when moving (plus the toll on joints)

My metabolism has changed, but my previously realistic appetite hasn't.

That's over 800 a week difference. So actually quite a big one. That's the ability to eat a fanily sized pudding and not gain any weight vs not. Over the year it's a huge different.

And yes 4 squares of chocolate or 2 biscuits the ability to have a treat a day and not gain weight is a big difference.

It alwasy annoys me hugely when tall or even average height people complain about their restricted calorie diet and it's more than I can eat even when doing a big work out. 1200cals a day is healthy intake- I'm a stone heavier at the mo because I'm doing around 1500cal a day.

Yes - your daily energy requirement is just a LOT lower if you're short than iuf you're tall.
Just as an example.. Say you're aiming for a BMI of 22; If you're 5'2" you would weigh 54.6kg if you're 5'7" you'd weigh 63.7kg Taking low activity as a baseline... it's about a 200 calorie difference daily.
Then consider that running and walking burn a lot more calories when you are bigger/heavier. So if they both go for a run, the shorter person burns a fair bit less energy.
Yes - we short folk, need to be much more careful about portion control to maintain a healthy weight.

I was still a size 8 -10 at 45 I am 55 (almost )and I am a 12-14.i sometimes wear size 14 trousers for comfort, you have a while yet enjoy your food.

Being short is a nightmare when it comes to this. I find that if I actually eat 3 square meals a day, I gain weight like it’s going out of fashion unless the portions are really small to the point of being child sized. My body just doesn’t need that much (even though I would like to eat that much). Two meals a day is plenty for me, sometimes even one large meal with snacks through the day is plenty, which is what I sometimes do if I’ve got a meal out planned or I’m looking forward to a takeaway later on.

I’ve got a physical job which helps keep the weight off but it’s always such a balancing act. I’d be the size of a small blimp if I wasn’t mindful and it’s not like I’m the perfect weight to begin with, could definitely stand to lose a few more lbs but it’s hard enough not gaining weight in the first place. I am dreading menopause and the issues that might cause with my weight.

Yes well add in 'old' and then really weep into your salad.

I'm 4 foot 11 and find it incredibly hard to lose weight in perimenopause, even though I weight train. I don't have enough hours in the day to do heroic amounts of exercise and it's very hard to get DP to understand that I need to watch portions, eat lighter, can't swill back pints of beer like he does.

It is a benefit of being tall and also able to hide a few extra pounds. My maintenance calories are around the 2000 mark.