Huzzah, a group for fellow shortarses! It's always odd when other people are talking about cutting down to 2000 calories a day and I'm on half that.

I'm not big-boned, but I'm definitely big-bosomed.

Esofia,

It seems I'm following you around tonight. You're food ideas sound so good I guess, I follow the food.

I'm 5' 1-3/4" tall and the nice thing about being short is you can wear 3" high heels and not tower over a lot of men. LOL

Yey! I thought I'd never find a place for short people! I'm roughly 5'2'', I guess, I'm 1.56m and the converter online said that was 61.4''.. almost 5'2'', right? anyway, let's not dwell on my height xD

3'' heels? Circe, I wear 5'' heels and I'm still shorter than most guys I know! So yeaaaah, there's definitely and upside to being this short LOL

And, Esofia, I hear you! I thought it was so odd for people to say they wanted to eat around 1800 Cal.. I have to keep myself closer to the minimum "allowed" (1200 Cal) if I want to see any results !

I had started the 5'2 and under thread way back... when I was still motivated and losing lots of weight. Well, I gained almost all of the weight back and got very out of shape. I am getting knee pain and all sorts of other problems. So now, I am trying to change my lifestyle. I am trying to be consistent and focus on exercise not just cutting back on food to lose weight. I am trying to actually build muscle, gain strength and stamina and tone up. This is not as quick as other methods to lose the fat, but it is a start.

I am now 120 pounds. I am trying to lose 20 pounds. I would love to be 100 pounds again. I wanted to get down to 110 pounds before the summer was over, before I started trying for babies. However, it took me 3 hard months to get down to 120 and I know for a fact, I won't be able to get down to 110 in the next 3.

Well, right now I am trying to eat healthy. Smaller portions of the bad stuff and sticking to oatmeal, fruits and veggies.

I also workout 5-7 days a week. I do high intensity interval training on the treadmill, walk on inclines, learning how to do the bike, i do jillian michaels 30 day shred dvd, 10 minute solutions dvds and pilates dvds. Hopefully now that it is warmer, I will be adding some swimming into the mix.

Love to be back on this site. I need the support!!! Here is to trying to lose these 20 pounds and actually working to maintain it if I get there this time!!

Mermaid, it sounds like you're doing a great job for me!

Does the recommended minimum of 1200 actually apply to people as short as us? I mean, I'm 4'11, I'm burning 1500 at most, and right now I'm fairly content on a diet of 1100. I'm losing a bit faster than I expected, but I've only been weighing myself for a fortnight so I'll see how it settles, especially since I doubt I'll be able to manage much of a calorie deficit once I get closer to goal. A 400 deficit isn't bad at 130-something lb but would be crazy at 100-something lb.

New to this thread, I'm 5'2" (and a 1/4" but I dont add that in) and I love being short. The bad part is when you gain 5 lbs it shows, but the good part is when you lose 5 lbs it shows too!!

I have never been really overweight but for me when I was at my heaviest of 133 I looked it. I was down to 108 1 year ago but I was eating about 800-1000 calories and not exercising so my legs lost a lot of muscle. I started exercising and went up to 114. Right now I'm between 111 and 113 but trying to get down to 108 and looked toned. Those last couple pounds are hard to get off!!
M-F I eat around 1200, weekends are around 1400-1500. I exercise somewhere between 3-5 days a week.

Everyone says when you go below 1200 starvation mode kicks but I don't think that when you are shorter you can go by that . . whats your feelings on this????

You are not supposed to go under 1200 calories. It is unhealthy.

Unhealthy for who? I've just checked a calorie calculator for someone of 4' tall, 80lb (top end of healthy weight or thereabouts), exercising three times a week, and it suggested 1100 for maintenance, 880 for fat loss, 680 for extreme fat loss (which seems worryingly low). For someone of my height and weight, it suggested 1453 maintenance (agrees with FitDay), 1162 for fat loss, 1056 for extreme fat loss - which means that actually I could eat a bit more than at present (I'm on about 1100). Those numbers seem oddly inconsistent to me, but my point is that at a certain height, 1200 would be too much to eat even for maintenance, and presumably there is a cut-off point at which the "below 1200 is unhealthy" mantra does not apply.

I think 1200 is just a standard that the medical world uses to cover their asses, but you should definitely go by your height and weight.

All I said was it is unhealthy. Technically speaking, it is.

But I say do whatever works for you. And if eating under 1200 calories works for you, good job and keep going!

I ate under 1200 calories for a year or two and yes, it worked wonders on my weight as a number on the scale but not for my body. I've spoken to many doctors, physical trainers and nutritionists about it and they all agreed, even at 5'0 tall, I should not have been eating under 1200 calories and NO ONE at any height should be eating less because it is unhealthy.

If you are eating under 1200 calories a day you are running the risk of not getting the proper amount of nutrients and vitamins you need (even if you use daily supplements). Your body will go into starvation mode and it will slow down your weight loss and eventually stop. If you don't exercise and you start to eat more, you are going to see the gains immediately. 1200 is not just a number that doctors throw around. There have been reports that it is the minimum amount your body needs to your bodily functions healthy otherwise you can be causing damage to your organs, brain, lungs, nails, hair, etc.

But like I said before, that's the accurate information yet you are the one to make decisions for yourself, not anyone else. So if you think you are exercising enough and eating right and eating under 1,200 works for you... be lucky that you are having success and keep with it.

If this were true, it would be impossible to starve or be anorexic.

It has been proven that dieting at all, having a calorie deficit AT ALL slows your metabolism temporarily. The transition from slowing or raising your metabolism takes several weeks.

When you consistently eat less for more than a few weeks, your metabolism slows. When you consistently eat more, your metabolism is raised. There is a ceiling on this, it doesn't just continue indefinitely. If it did, we would not ever become obese or underweight.

If a 6 foot, 250 pound man went less than 1200 calories a day, that would be endangering his health. His BMR could be close to twice what mine is. In fact, I'd venture to say that a person that size the calorie level "danger zone" would be significantly higher than what it is for me. You can't put the same label on the entire population, as there are vast differences. As shorties, we are on the low end of this spectrum

No one of any height? If you took someone of 3' tall and fed them a 1200 calorie diet, I imagine they'd end up gaining weight steadily and would not be healthier. Obviously I'm talking about dwarfism for adults of that height, but my point is that there will be a cut-off point where 1200 stops being too little, and I'd like to know what it is. (I'm attempting to google this as I am now thoroughly curious, and coming up with sites about dwarf rabbits, hamsters and apple trees, which is not quite what I was looking for.) Are you really saying that everyone has exactly the same nutritional needs regardless of size?

The thing that I find particularly suspicious about the oft-quoted 1200 limit is that just as daily calorie needs vary according to height and build, miminum calorie needs in order to maintain health must surely vary accordingly. If 1200 really is the minimum amount of calories that I need to stay healthy, then how on earth would 1200 or anything like it be safe for a man of 6'5?

I also find that the figures thrown around with regard to weight and calories tend to be popular averages. 2,500 for a man, 2,000 for a woman, 500 deficit for weight loss. The flaws with the first two are obvious, and as for the third, I'm short enough that a 500 deficit is obviously going to be too severe, yet it's still quoted as if it's some sort of universal goal. It might be the equivalent of burning off a pound of fat a week, which is a nice easy number, but that in no way means that it's ideal for everyone. Tall people at the other end of the scale has the same problem we do, only the other way around. I've seen a tall, active man say that he burns 3,000 calories a day and eats 2,000. I suspect that this is too much of a calorie deficit, but at that height I honestly have no idea. I'd far rather see calorie deficits popularly calculated as percentages, e.g. cut 25% of calories, than the 500-calorie-deficit-fits-all-and-don't-go-below-1200 scenario.

Could you find me some references for those reports? I'm not disbelieving you, don't worry, and I don't doubt for a minute that those problems occur with malnourishment, but I'd very much like to see what height ranges they were working with and how they used averages. Particularly since science reporting is often simplified in the media to the point of total data distortion. Not to mention that clinical trials have such narrowly restricted entry criteria that there is a common problem with drugs not being adequately tested on women, because women are perceived as being too variable (we change over the course of a month! unacceptable!). Show me a study of 1,000 women, all under five feet tall, and then I might be more convinced that going below 1200 is actually dangerous for me, as opposed to some mythical average figure who is neither male nor female. Especially since once I reach my target weight, I won't need to eat much above 1200 for maintenance.

I've also been told by my doctor that the amount I'm eating is absolutely fine. This is, of course, absolutely anecdotal, and while she's a fabulous GP and has always done well by me, that doesn't necessarily mean she's right. If you don't mind my asking, how far below 1200 did you go? Was your diet restricted in any other way than calorie counting (e.g. low carb or what have you), or rather had you made significant changes to your diet as well as eating less?

If you are interested in learning more, you can certainly do some research yourself. I don't need to prove anything to you. I don't need you to believe me or agree with me. I don't care if your opinion is different than mine, everyone is entitled to their own. And if your doctor is on board with you eating less than 1,200 calories that shows me that, that is obviously what you need and what works for you. Everyone is different. So, if you have a doctors consent and know what is best for you, why are you so concerned with a stranger's comments?

this is a board for discussing and supporting each other's weight loss journey. to share information with one another in hopes we can help, not to debate or argue about the information. you can either choose to believe or listen to it or not. I was sharing what i know and i have been told, just as others do the same. there is no need for a debate or anything of that sort. if you don't agree, ignore it and move on.

I went down to 1100 calories a day(no more than 1200 ever) and I lost 1 lb in a month! An entire month of working out 5 or more times weekly. I went to a Bachelorette weekend and drank and ate(in moderation) pretty much what I wanted and I lost a pound when I came back. And 2 weeks after that I went to Disney World and let loose(think fish and chips, ice cream, pizza etc) and when I got back I was down 2.5 lbs!! Granted there was a lot of walking but I didn't exert anymore effor than normal. I think my metabolism was shot from eating so little. I was so scared to eat more bc I wanted to lose the weight quickly but all I needed was to fire the metabolism back up by eating. I never believed in the 'starvation' principle before now. But with saying that I do realize that everyone is totally different and that our bodies all lose weight differently. Its just about finding about what is best/right for you!

I've got signatures disabled so I can't see your ticker to see your weight, but you're my height and a LOT more active (workout 5x week vs. housebound from disability), so it sounds like that makes quite a lot of difference, possibly around 500 calories or more. In which case, 1100 for me would be the equivalent of 1600 for you, and 1100 for you does sound far too low. And that's if you're my weight, if you weigh more then the calorie difference would be even greater. Out of curiosity, what do you reckon your calorie expenditure is, and if you're counting calories, what level do you find that you do well on?

Mermaid, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I do hope you're not either. You made a statement, I'm interested in it and want to learn more about it so I asked for your sources, that's all. Yes, I can google, but there is an enormous amount of information on the internet about weight loss, with an equally enormous variation in quality, and since I have both cognitive and visual impairments I find it pretty hard to sift through big topics like this. (And I've just tried, and right now I'm wading through lots of forum discussions where no one is sure of the answer and I haven't found a speck of actual research.) You spoke of specific research and I'd really appreciate it if you could link me to it so that I can read it. I'm trying to open up discussion here, not shut it down.