Short people: does excess weight look different on us?

[PresidentBarklett]

Aware that's a really stupid title, with a lot if variables, but genuinely struggled to word it. I know it's all about context but here is my query:

I'm 5'3 and I've lost nearly 5 stone on MJ, taking me down to 11 st 12 and a size 14/16, depending on the shop. I have about 3ish stone to go till my self imposed target (still haven't quite decided where that will be as its off the edge of the map - never been below 11 stone as an adult).

People have noticed my weight loss, which is nice. However, I'm still objectively fat - by BMI (29.8 at last count) and by eye - less so, but still very noticeably overweight. This is fine, happy to keep going.

However, it feels like my chance to look 'slim' is ticking away with every lb I lose. Its not my primary motivation (that would be my family history of heart disease) but I would hope to look slim after all this. However, gauging how my body has changed due to a 5st loss, I'm not sure how much more visible change I could expect with the 3st loss hopefully still to come. Googling what a 3 st loss looks like it... looks like a lot less than what I would hope to achieve.

I guess I'm just very much hoping that on shorter bodies a few lbs can make a bigger difference as I just don't see how 3st could effect the changes I would hope for. I'm not asking for the body of a 20 year old or a model. Im come from robust peasant stock amd thats fine. I cant think of a way to phrase this without sounding shallow but, yknow, I would like to look objectively slim.

Any experience of the visual difference 3 stone can make to a shorter body?

I’m five foot four. I need to stay under 9st 7 to look slim, I mean slim not average or thin. I wear a size 12, it’s loosely comfortable.

It was muscle! Google female Olympic cyclist and that is what my legs and bum look like, regardless of my weight.

So I was not fat, but I definitely did not skinny, especially in clothes. Just how my body is built. It was the 90s, when heroin chic/a flat bum and thigh gap were popular. Muscular thighs and a big bum were not seen as attractive.

I’m your height and I’ve lost 3 stone on MJ, from 12st 7lb to 9st 7lb. I’ve gone from a size 14 to a 10 (occasionally an 8). I think that 3 stone difference is very noticeable and I look much slimmer, especially as I’ve lost a lot from my middle and have my waist back and also from my upper arms and back, so much less matronly looking!

I think it’s fascinating the impact that body shape and age has too, even at similar heights. I’m an hourglass with FF boobs and a bum, so I’m never going to be a super slim 8st/8st 7 and my natural weight (where I can maintain by eating reasonably and exercising reasonably) seems to be towards the upper end of a healthy BMI. I could keep pressing on with MJ to lose another 7lb, but at 50 I think I’d start to look gaunt in the face, so where I am now feels like the right balance.

Me too. I’m in my fifties now but at 5ft tall in my twenties I had to have treatment for anaemia as I was hardly eating (very precarious job and accommodation, no money, very little food and constantly working, walking or exercising as I had nowhere else to go).

I was just in the underweight category, and didn’t look objectively slim. I have eastern European heritage and my shoulders and hips are broad enough to make me a size 12 even when there’s no flesh on me at all. That looks big at 5ft.

I’m 54 now and aiming eat to feel well nourished, happy, strong and confident. Which means I will weigh in at 8.5 to 9 stone when I reach my goal weight (I’m 10.4 atm). That may be too heavy for some people but its right for me. I came to terms with not being able to look properly slim a long time ago, although I love clothes so given the choice, I’d say yes to being six inches taller in a heartbeat.

Yes weight gained/lost is more noticeable on shorter people than taller.

I also think on a weight loss journey the closer you are to goal the more visible each stone lost is. If you’re many stone overweight and you lose one, it’s got a big surface area to come from and you don’t actually shrink that much. But once you’re only a stone or two over your body is smaller and you will really see it come off.

ie I think you’ll notice more visible difference from this last three stone than you did from the previous!

I am 5ft tall and I was 15st I was a size 18 and only wore stretchy clothes.

I am now down to 8st 11 and according to the BMI charts I should go down another stone. I am however planning to maintain at this weight as I am a solid 8-10 and I will look gaunt if I lose any more! It definitely looked more apparent when I hit the nine stone range!
I think on a taller person it would have been apparent earlier.

It has been lovely not to avoid mirrors as I was such a weird shape before.

I put three stone on (got up to eleven stone in June - the heaviest I’ve ever been) and am a weird shape too! My ribcage and hips stayed relatively small and I developed a massive belly and a pad of fat across my shoulders and upper arms that is so big it actually feels as if its physically restraining me. This is the bit I hate seeing in the mirror.

I went up one cup size, from a B to a C, and two dress sizes, from a 12 to a 16.

I’ve lost a stone now and the belly has gone down about six inches to 31 inches, (I know 🫤) my bust is back to a B cup and my hips are more defined. The fat neck and shoulders are as big as ever though and I’m still sat here in size 16 jeans and shirt.

From past experience I know that it won’t be until I approach nine stone that I’ll be a more ‘normal’ shape. Clothes wise I don’t expect to be back in a 12 until I’m about eight and a half stone, which is the lowest I’d want to go, if I even get there.

Well, look at that, my thread got dragged back up from the vault! Pleased to say that, 2 months later, I've lost a further 10 lbs and there is a notable difference in appearance. That 10 lbs has been enough to take me from a mid size 16 to a loose 14. 2.5 stone to go...

Fantastic op! Keep going. I'm 5 foot 7 and started at a size 16, lost 5 stone and am now a small size 10. At your height, 3 stone will make a huge difference.

But if the cans were people then the taller one would be slimmer than the shorter one.

To be relevant to this thread you need to compare cans of the same BMI.

Congratulations OP. Good luck with the rest of your weight loss journey.
I'm 5"2 have lost over a stone but still in same size clothes 14/16, they are a bit loser, now weigh 11stone 4, before DC I weighed 9stone 4 and was a size 10. When I was late teen early twenties I weighed about 8stone 10 and was a size 8, did look slim but never willowy slim as my body type is more Welsh pit pony!I'm a bit square, I'd love a long waist!
Realistically at 54 anything under 10 stone would be amazing, it's coming off very slowly and sadly as a menopausal short woman with a full time desk job the amount of calories I need to eat to eat to even lose a pound a week is about 1000.
It's more obvious when short women carry excess weight imo.
My MIL has a Garfield cartoon in her kitchen which says I'm not overweight I'm under tall-and tbh that's how I've felt most of my life!

It’s not ridiculous. If you put my details into the TDEE - female/58yrs/160cm/68kg/sedantary - it calculates that I can eat max 950 cals to lose. 1450 to maintain.

It has been an eye opener to me that I need to eat LESS calories after each stone that I lose in order to just maintain that weight or to continue to lose.

Sorry but would also say that days intake doesn’t look healthy to me - too UPF and not enough fibre (unless you made each item from scratch with clean ingredients).

https://tdeecalculator.net/

it has been an eye opener to me that I need to eat LESS calories after each stone that I lose in order to just maintain that weight or to continue to lose.

Why would you think you would need more cals to maintain? The lighter you are, the fewer calories you need.

I'm not surprised you would need so few cals to lose weight if you are sedentary.
It does't sound like a very healthy way to lose weight.

Take into account your body proportions, not just your height.

if you are 5’3” with proportionally long legs and short body, you need to weigh less than long body and shorter legs. The trunk of the body with all the insides weighs more than legs - inch by inch.

people’s legs got longer as nutrition improved, but there are still a lot of people with shorter than average legs. <talking in general terms, there will still be people who are genetically shorter>

A good metric is to have a waist that is less half your height. So if you are 63”, a waist of 29” is slim, 30” ok, 31” healthy and 31.5” maximum. If you can marry that with a healthy range bmi and low visceral fat/high muscle - kudos!

As a short legged/long body shape at 5’3, who wears 7/8 trousers as full length, I’m working in progress … getting there - albeit slowly.

For many being sedentary is not a choice.
Also sedentary is defined has not taking 40 mins cardio exercise x3/week - which many women fall into if they don’t have time working full time and raising a family.

Many diets fail when people get to goal and maintenance as they don’t realise how low the calories are that tips you back into weight gain.

The standard NHS advice is that women need 2000 cals a day for maintenance and to drop by 500 to 1500 a day to lose. I am average height for UK woman 5’3” - so this advice would get the average woman fat quickly.

I'm 5ft 1 and have gone down from 68.7kg to 58.5kg, so I'm just over 9 stone but I still have chubby legs. I've been 7.5 stone in the past and still felt curvey. Short people cannot carry any excess weight, it's blooming annoying.

That makes no sense. If your maintenance is 1450 then by definition anything less than that is a deficit and will result in weight loss. I don’t know where the “max 950 to lose” comes from.

Also the 1450 is based on being completely sedentary. Are you really?

IMO no one looks slim until BMI 21 ish. Above that people look fine, standard, but not actively slim. What BMI are you aiming for OP?

It’s come from the standard NHS advice to drop 500 cals a day to lose 1-2lb a week. I suspect that’s because it gives a clear gap to accommodate any errors. Dropping 200 cals a day could get lost and fall within margin of error.

If you look at the TDEE calc I linked to - you will see that they define ‘sedentary’ as ‘office job’ - and there are various activity levels up to ‘athlete - working out twice a day’ - so you can calculate for your own personal level. I don’t actively exercise and have an office job - so fall into their definition of sedentary which many women in the UK do.

I wasn't judging, just stating a fact. I understand that many people are unable to exercise, but it's not ideal health-wise.

If you are doing nothing then it makes sense that you'd have to cut a lot of cals to lose weight and it would be really hard.

I am 5ft 2 and weigh 7st

I still wobble. I’m small, of course - but fuck me.. I’ve a belly and I wouldn’t be seen dead in a bikini

I'm 5ft 4. I feel and look slim at 9 stone. At 9 stone 7 I feel and look wobbly. I've been very lax over summer and feeling very bloated and gross and think I need to lose that half stone (again!!)

Trust me OP if you lose another 3 stone it will be VERY noticeable on your 5 ft 3 frame. Sure you might not have washboard abs, but as a fellow shortie I lost 12kg 10 years ago and the difference was night and day. Weight is a curse and a blessing for us petite people, every pound gained shows up quickly but the reverse is also true too. Well done your weight loss, and good luck reaching your goal!

I'm exactly 5 foot and know full bloody well I look fatter because my body is short.

It also turns out that, after having to measure myself to prove my height to my pharmacy, I'm actually 5"2. Which obviously whacked my BMI up by a surprising amount - bit disconcerting!