Does the size of a person affect the results?

dockanz · Post by **dockanz** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:52 pm

I am 6'4" and currently weigh about 245, though I weighed about 370 at my highest. My basal metabolic rate, the number of calories I need without ever moving, is much higher than a woman who is 4'11" and weighs 120 pounds. If I eat 3 normal plates everyday, it doesn't really matter what I put on them; it's all good. However, I suspect that the aforementioned woman would likely struggle to lose anything eating the same 3 plates of food that I do.

Have people had experience with this? Is there any encouragement for smaller people to use smaller plates, etc.?

vmelo · Post by **vmelo** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:11 pm

I think this is a great question, and I've thought of this issue myself. I've noticed that many people who post big weight losses are men. It seems that men lose faster, and I'll bet the reason is that men are able to achieve a bigger calorie deficit than women. That is, if the average man needs 2400 calories a day and eats three plates of food at 1700 calories per day, that's a deficit of 700 calories. Let's say the average woman needs 1900 calories a day. If her three plates of food come to, say, 1500 calories, that's only a 400-calorie-per-day deficit.

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:39 pm

IME, on any diet men and heavier people lose more quickly. Smaller people just have lower caloric needs!

Men lose faster because not only are they larger in general, but they have more muscle mass and hence greater caloric needs. Or, what vmelo said.

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:53 pm

I agree with everything that's been said.... I'm 150 lbs and female and on the pill (which MIGHT make it harder to lose weight) and if I wanted to lose weight, I think I'd have to drop drastically to like 1200 calories, which is hard to keep up with.

apomerantz · Post by **apomerantz** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:30 pm

This is absolutely a valid issue. I'm only 5 feet tall . . .my basal metabolic needs are about 1250 calories per day. Add some movement on top of that and maybe I require 1400 calories. It is darn hard to run a 500 calorie deficit per day with a starting point of 1400 calories.

My solution is to exercise a lot. I'm still not skinny, but I'm pretty fit. And I am losing weight on No S. Albeit at a very slow rate - - about 1 lb per month. But I am in the normal BMI zone and pretty fit, so honestly I'm fine with the slow loss. I exercise about 1.5-2 hours (usually 1 hr cardio/the rest weights or strengthening) per day, 6 days per week. It's not easy, but I like it better than trying to starve myself.

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:43 am

Of course the size of a person affects results. So does activity level, age, gender, etc.

But that doesn't mean that there won't BE results for all of us.

My eight-year-old son plays soccer, and was full of "they had an advantage!" talk after losing a game. My husband told him "everybody has advantages and disadvantages. You just need to figure out how to accomplish what you want to despite that." (We are trying to stress that "practice builds skill," not focus on winning.)

So, it's like that. Some people have an advantage in losing weight. The fact that it's easier for someone else doesn't make it impossible for me... And in this case, it's not even a competition. We can all win.

guadopt1997 · Post by **guadopt1997** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:01 pm

Also, even though I'm tracking my weight once a week and looking forward to the day I reach my goal, with no-S, how sane I feel, how glad I am not to be eating after dinner and late into the night (which I did even when I allegedly had GERD and was not supposed to eat for four hours before lying down), not having guilt, being able to enjoy some freedom within what's on my plate every day, and more on the weekend, all that, compensates for slowish loss on the scale.

On previous diets, the minute I reached goal and stopped dieting, I started regaining. That's not going to happen this time.

harpista · Post by **harpista** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:22 am

If I were a very small woman, I'd probably just use... smaller plates. And maybe emphasize produce a bit more.

As it is, I have lots of way to go... I am obese, tall-ish (5'7"), and actively weight training for about 8 months, so I may be a bit easier off than others when it comes to posting "numbers." If I am good that is

Post by **reinhard** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:45 am

I think the visual power of the single plate rule "scales" well.

Yes, one is always one, big or small.

But a big heaping plate that will look appropriate for an NFL player is going to look absurd for a little lady.

I don't think many people will have to systematically worry about this. If you just focus on the 1=1, I think the visual sense of what is appropriate for your size will automatically follow.

All you have to worry about is not sneaking excess. Put it in the open, and it'll be obvious. And that obviousness will be enough (in time) to whittle it down to size.

Reinhard

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:39 pm

Size matters.

So does level of activity.

Fumpo · Post by **Fumpo** » Tue May 26, 2009 12:26 pm

Now I'm posting twice on my first day! I hope you don't all think I'm an annoying loudmouth...

I think it might be worth considering how much 1 pound of loss means proportionally. I'm 5'11" and about 120kg (roughly 264lb). If I lose 5lb this month I doubt anyone will notice... I've got about 44lb to lose to get to my previous "best", at which I still looked a bit chubby, about 80lb to be within the BMI "normal" range.

A 5'6" woman proportionally roughly as far into the "obese" range as I am has about 50lb to lose.

Or, to put it another way, when Nichole loses 1lb and I lose 1lb, she's dropped .7% of her bodyweight, and I've only dropped .4% - so it's only fair if I can lose a little faster.

Sorry that was very longwinded - I'll try to be snappier in future, and less muddled.

~reneew · Post by **~reneew** » Tue May 26, 2009 4:22 pm

Did no one mention PMS?

That alone is a reason why women may have a hard time. Hypothyroidism also makes a difference. I for one need a "lunch plate" for lunch and a "dinner plate" for dinner. Pizza is my thing and you can certainly have a leaning tower of pizza and 'legally' have a green day on your habitcal. You must use some common sense, or eat with others who you know will comment on your plate

vmelo · Post by **vmelo** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:03 pm

~reneew wrote:Did no one mention PMS? That alone is a reason why women may have a hard time. Hypothyroidism also makes a difference. I for one need a "lunch plate" for lunch and a "dinner plate" for dinner. Pizza is my thing and you can certainly have a leaning tower of pizza and 'legally' have a green day on your habitcal. You must use some common sense, or eat with others who you know will comment on your plate

Excellent point. The "leaning tower" was what did me in the last couple of attempts at No-S. I didn't use common sense. I was on diet rebound and was eating super fattening meals that just "technically" fit on my plate. Also, I was pigging out on the weekends (you know: eating just because the diet "said so"). Obviously, I didn't lose any weight (that I could tell); I may have even gained weight.

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Tue May 26, 2009 5:31 pm

Regarding PMS, all I know is that when it's during my PRE m.cycle (spelling it out b/c sometimes people forget that P stand for PRE, as in before), I get extremely hungry all the time. Then it goes away for three weeks and I'm good. So maddening.