Could NOT resist using this today.

                        

In Celebration of Mother's Day weekend,

below is a rather special Cat video

that my daughter brought to my attention.

This is how different
150 lbs can look.

ALL of these women
weigh 150 lbs.

  I am a 5 ft 0 inch woman.
The shortest woman in the picture above is 5 ft 2 inches.

During my years of sharing my online, I've received many comments from women with heights in the 5' 4" to 5' 9' range giving me their opinions about my weight-maintenance stuggles. The substance of those comments have indicated to me that many women simply do not understand, or do not think about, the basic concept of the picture above.

In order to look "normal" weight, shorter women have to weigh less than taller women. In general .... the bodies of shorter women also use less energy (burn less calories) than taller women, and therefore shorter women have to eat far less than taller women.

Additionally, ... in general ... as a woman ages, she burns less and less calories, and many short, elderly woman require very few calories to maintain a "normal" weight.
Food Label information is based on a mythical “AVERAGE” daily requirement  for intake of 2000 calories. Nutritionists also provide that number along with the 1200 calorie number that no one is supposed to go under. Most people consider themselves about average (or better than average) so when they think of daily calorie requirements these are the numbers they normally think about. But these numbers are very wrong for many people.

 More knowledgeable people will use online calculators to determine their basic metabolism rate, and then add the activity factor percentage that they believe applies to them, in order to get an estimate of their own personal daily calorie requirement.

These general truths are also complicated by the fact that the BMR /RMR charts showing calorie requirements for various ages, heights and weights are made up of many different variables that are AVERAGED all together. The calorie requirements given for any specific woman within these charts can often be 10% less than stated.

There can be differences in BMR even when two people have exactly the same lean body mass. Within the studies on which the chart numbers are based, the top 5% of people are using energy 28-32% faster than the bottom 5%.

One 2004 research study reported an extreme case of two people with the same lean body mass (95lbs) … One had a BMR of 1075 calories per day, and one had a BMR of 1790 calories per day. This difference of 715 calories daily is the equivalent to one of these people completing a 10K run EVERY DAY.

Lean body mass is the non-fat portion of the body. For example a "average" 5’4” female weighing 126 lbs would have 95 lbs of lean mass (75%) and 31 lbs (25%) of fat mass. 

Most online calculators use the Harris-Benedict equation and/or the Mifflin equation for RMR. The Harris-Benedict equation was first published in 1919, and is still the most widely used. Since that time there have been numerous studies attempting to improve it, however the most accurate of these studies is the Mifflin equation.

All equations for predicting energy expenditure are only estimates, however, the Harris-Benedict equation typically overestimates by 5% or more.

Also, although Harris-Benedict is called BMR, it is ACTUALLY an equation for RMR, not BMR because the test subjects did not spend the night at the testing facility.

The following chart might be shocking to people who think in the general terms that Nutritionists give about the number of calories required to maintain a normal body weight. 
 I prepared the chart shown here using my own age and height.
This chart shows estimates of my calorie requirements at different weights.
It compares the Mifflin RMR with the Harris-Benedict BMR.

For an estimate of my TOTAL calorie burn based on the chart averages,
see the column which has my sedentary Activity factor (1.2%) added to my Mifflin RMR.

Since my consistent record keeping indicates that my total calorie burn is below average, I also made a comparison of low-average numbers existing within the standard deviation.
This last column most closely matches my numbers in the computer daily calorie records which I’ve kept for the past 8 years.

The calculations most closly matching my records show that eating an average of 1200 calories per day would maintain my body at around 150 lbs.

For my 5’0” elderly body to maintain a weight of 200 lbs, I would need to eat only about 1485 calories daily.

Even my own initial reaction was:  "THAT CAN"T BE RIGHT!" ... but yes, I'm afraid that it is correct.
Notice that EVEN using the total Formula for an "Average" woman of my height and age means eating a 1635 daily average would maintain her at 200 pounds.  To visualize how 200 lbs looks on my 5' 0" body ... add 50 more pounds to the shortest woman on the top picture, and then make her fatter to adjust for making her 2 inches shorter.   

What Does the Scale Say? 

The only thing the scale can tell me is how much my body weighs at the moment I step on it. It provides objective numerical information. All of our value judgments based on that information are subjective … coming from inside our own heads. The scale cannot tell me how I appear to myself or others, whether I’m healthy, or how I should feel about myself and my own character.

The scale is a TOOL that can be helpful in weight-management.
It is not a judge of my worth, my health, or even my beauty.  I can choose to get on the scale and weigh my body or not, but that numerical information is an objective fact, whether or not I choose to look at it.

I weigh myself every day. I record my weight in a computer program that provides me with a graph that shows me whether over time (weekly, monthly, yearly) my weight is going up, going down or staying about the same. I find this information useful in my efforts of personal weight-management.

My own reality is that my own food intake … over time … is what ultimately moves the scale number up or down. As a “reduced obese” person, I need my MIND to help me stay a normal weight because my BODY continually signals me to eat in a manner that will cause me to regain my lost weight. I have discovered that  I, personally, ALWAYS choose to eat more ...over time... when I don’t use the scale to weigh myself and force myself to SEE and recognize that objective numerical reality.

I agree with the following article:

Don't Stress About the Scale

By Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, M.D. – May 1, 2013 – usnews.com

It's simple, right? You stand on your scale, and then it tells you how much you weigh. And if the sentence ended there, I'd agree you know how to use a scale. Except most folks, especially folks who are struggling with or are upset about their weights, don't end their sentences there. Instead, their scales also somehow seem to magically tell them "how they're doing."

Doctors aren't often any better. Despite a whole lot of schooling, their scales also seem to tell them things beyond weight; once patients stand on doctors' scales, somehow those scales miraculously tells doctors whether or not their patients are healthy.

Well, I'm here to tell you and your doctors that the only thing a scale is capable of telling you or them is how much you weigh. How you're doing and whether or not you're healthy—well, those variables depend on how you're actually doing and whether or not you're actually healthy.

It's no surprise that society assigns a huge amount of undeserved power to the scale—after all, that's what we've been taught. That may be due to the past 50 years of weigh-ins at Weight Watchers or the nonsensically dramatic final weigh-in of The Biggest Loser or the incredible weight bias that permeates all of society and leads many physicians to rather than actually take a careful history and examination of the person in front of them, to simply weigh or even just look at a patient with weight and ascribe all of their concerns to it.

But here's the thing. The only thing a scale ever tells anyone is how much that person weighs at the moment they step on it. And I realize there's often overlap—if you're trying to lose weight and the number on the scale goes down, it reaffirms your strategies, and weight does in and of itself raise the risk of many medical conditions. But letting the scale be the sole arbiter of success or health is risky.

It's risky because there are times when more weight doesn't correspond to worse health, and there are plenty of medical problems that have causes other than weight. It's risky too because scales measure a great many things that don't count—clothing, constipation and water retention for instance. And scales also don't know whether or not there have been great reasons in your life for you to have used food quite appropriately for comfort or celebration.

Most importantly, it's risky because the scale should never have the power to deflate you. Whether it was for weight loss or health, if you've adopted healthful changes with the express intent of seeing the scale go down, and it doesn't, you run the risk of abandoning those behaviors that likely improve your health at any weight consequent to your potential discouragement.

So the next time you sidle up to your scale, remember: It'll tell you how much you weigh, but you have to tell yourself how you're doing. And when you're trying to figure out how you're doing, instead of looking to an LCD readout, look to what you're actually doing to affect your weight or your health. If what you're actually doing is "good," don't let a stupid scale tell you you're doing any differently.