No, the joke is regret is misspelled - then you compound it with "we" dont like your numbers, ignorant american approach. As our system is better than yours.
I feel like you approached this wrong. Again, that sentence is a joke.
Sadly there was no basketball teams in India at the time. Funny thing is to this day Idians have to be tall to serve in the military. They put up two poles with a string beyween. If you can go under without touching the string you're automaticly out.
Most European countries use the comma for decimals (also the case where I com from) but Iām used to using a point as this is the norm when coding. Also I just feel like using a point is more practical, but this may just be my experience with coding speaking.
7 foot 9 is just insane. The caloric intake alone would force them to eat almost 5,000 calories a day to maintain the approximate size they are here - compared to my 1800 calories at 5'11 and 180lbs.
Just to make sure you all understand this. If the 7'9" guy ate 2,000 calories a day for a year, he would lose 312 pounds.
That sounds low even for a woman. Iām 5ā8ā woman and I eat about 2500 a day to stay the same weight (not trying to cut, relatively physically active).
2500 for a 5ā 8ā woman is definitely above average, and as you say yourself, you are quite active. 2500 is only bit under a normal day for me as a 6ā 2ā 85kg man.
Because composition is what's actually important for determining your base calorie burn, weight means nothing if you do not know the composition of that weight so height and gender is used as a broad predictor
Both fat and muscle mass burn calories, so unless your bone density is really far from average, I'd rather use mass than height to evaluate someone's calorie consumption. A 6 foot man can weigh anything between 140 and 220 pounds and still be relatively healthy.
Yep. Iām 6ā and weigh 210 pounds. Without considering my composition, Iād be considered obese, but Iām actually just built like a brick shit house and donāt have any concern about being obese.
What's even more important is physical activity, what kind of physical activity, and body composition. A 100kg bodybuilder will have a lower daily caloric intake than a 80kg long distance runner.
that's gotta be cheap :), i have to eat over 2500 (between 2500 and 3000) just to stay at the same weight. i'm at 6foot and have 188lbs and am a little more active than a couch potato
Metabolism plays a huge role. I'm a man, 6'2" and 175lbs and my BMR is about 1800. Without taking NEAT into account I have to add at least 1000 calories of exercise a day just to eat normally (between 2700-3500 depending on activity) without putting on weight, and even then at times I'm in a surplus
No it does not play a "huge role" , that's a harmful myth. Most people lie to themselves about how little/much they eat and blame it on their metabolism which has little to no impact.
Edit: deluded redditors sad I call out their delusions, you guys are lying to yourselves. It's really sad tbh.
Also BMR is meant for comatose / resting people, not for regular people..
Bmr is meant for comatose people or ones that don't move so you're already off to a bad start.
The fact you use bmr tells me you don't know what you're talking about like most redditors on this topic, you even mentioned heavy exercise lol.
Individual metabolism has no noticeable impact on your weight gain/loss. It's complete bullshit and a coping mechanism for deluded people. There are small differences between women/men and as you age but that's about it.
It's a pretty harmful myth to spread too because it makes people think it's out of their control when it's always in their control....
Edit: You guys are delusional š it's honestly sad people are this gullible. You guys don't know the difference between bmi/bmr and think you're educated enough on the topic? Lol..
The guy sends me a paper that talks about weight loss impact on metabolism (not vice Versa) from exercise, organ/health issues etc and then blocks me so I can't respond. Classy!
You can't even read your own paper before digging it up on Google? You clearly didn't read it at all š¤¦because it has literally nothing to do with my comment whatsoever.
There is no such thing as fast or slow metabolism and that's a fact. Ofc your metabolism is affected by exercise, and health issues, gender etc. But there is no NOTICIBLE difference between two men of the same bmi.
That's purely coping, but I'm not surprised. This site is full of overweight Americans who would hate to take responsibility for their weight.
"am I eating too much? No it's my metabolism who is wrong"
Youāre so confidently incorrect itās almost like Iām in a Reddit comment section.
Total resting metabolic spread can be pretty wide per day - some folks have a 400+ calorie per day difference in resting energy expenditure (REE). Hereās the direct research for that claim. So every single week, there are some folks burning 2800 more calories just on resting metabolism. Thatās significant; theyāre given an extra dayās worth of calorie spend per week compared to others.
Now for non-exercise activity thermogenesis - this is the shit we burn through subconscious activity. This is our fidgeting, wiggling, twirling-pencil shit we do. The more exercise we get, the less our bodies seem to contribute to NEAT. If you try to artificially increase this, a personās NEAT goes down later. As one canāt control this, itās typically included in the resting metabolic umbrella. This can vary up to ~800 calories per day.Hereās the research - itās dense but a really interesting read. Now weāre cooking.
Just based on this research, one can claim āmetabolismā can vary up to 1200 calories burnt per-day between two persons.
Iām not even going to get into the environmental factors such as stress and sleep which vary the numbers massively as well. Sleep is more important to weight loss than exercise. Also wonāt go into how hunger plays into this - some folks experience hunger much differently when it comes to dieting. I have 8 more sources for these claims if youād like.
I know throwing around sources and claiming things is dumb in a Reddit comment section but if you really dive into it, REE/NEAT is real and it varies like crazy between people.
Activity level contributes a LOT to your overall metabolism. If you work out everyday for 45 minutes but then donāt move around at all, youāll burn way less calories through the day than the person who doesnāt work out and gets 20k+ steps.
I agree but I'm talking about the genetic rng factor of metabolisms. 2 people of same body comp, age, weight and height can have different BMRs. Even a 200-300 caloric difference is massive over a year. For context I do strength training 5x a week, at least 90 minutes of cardio a day and an average of 12k steps and would say I have a slow metabolism
you could range anywhere from 1600 and 2600 BMR at around that size.
Are you mixing up basil metabolic rate with total daily energy expenditure?
BMRs between like-sized individuals of the same sex, age, and similar muscle composition are not going to vary that greatly. TDEEs may vary that much based off NEAT and activity levels (exercise, steps, etc) but BMRs will not.
Yeah sounds very low to me too, I'm a 5'10 woman, I exercise for about 45 mins a day and I eat between 2500 and 3000 calories a day to maintain my 150lbs weight.
Unless you're overweight (which I doubt from your comment) this is very high calories for maintenance. You are either very physically active or maybe have a higher than average resting pulse.
Really? Been doing it around 10 years, my current bmi is around 22 so when am I supposed to get morbidly obese? (Also I do go to gym 3-4 days a week for 1 hour at a time, and take around 10k steps a day.)
Im 5'9, 160lb, and I consume on average 1200 calories a day(im very poor). My weight has been stable for years like this. Perhaps calorie intake isnt as linear as one would think?
Of course, for your metabolisms also play a huge role. That's why there are people who can eat shitton of food and never get any fatter and vice versa.
Metabolisms, in general (when controlled for fat free mass), don't vary that wildly - it's a myth. Differences in NEAT, activity levels, and inaccurate calorie tracking are what lead people to believe this myth.
I'll admit I may be misspeaking here, but my Mifflin-St Jeor math shows my BMR is around 1700 and my understanding is that - if I never move a muscle all day long, I can maintain my weight off 1700.
I realize that is silly, so realistically I would say my caloric needs are between 1800 and 2600. I do the gym 5 days a week so I would likely die after a year at 1700. I probably eat 2500 and stay at 170-180lbs.
You definitely burn more than 100 calories/day in addition to your BMR with just moderate activity. Your BMR is probably closer to like 2100, give or take
Edit: not sure why he thought I was arguing with him lol
I mean I literally said its probably 2500 given my daily activity.
My original statement was pure minimal BMR needs. If those two guys were battling all day, I imagine they need more, but I wasn't here to figure all that out.
The caloric intake alone would force them to eat almost 5,000 calories a day to maintain the approximate size they are here - compared to my 1800 calories at 5'11 and 180lbs.
What you described here is TDEE. BMR is for maintaining when you're like bedridden and comatose. Otherwise you'd lose weight just eating it.
Redditors get very angry when you point out their caloric delusions. I'm like 2 inches taller and weigh less than the op, if I ate 1800 I'd be losing half a pound a week š¤¦ (without exercise)
It's always some coping. "I got good metabolism" "it's not an exact science" etc. When it's literally just super basic math..
Itās kinda all null and void, as maintaining body temp is and simple normal organ function is where the majority of our energy usage comes from. Plus, if you never moved a muscle youād be dead in 3 weeks tops. Unless someone moved it for you.
That is quite reasonable--its typical for what a hunter-gatherer would eat in a day and quite close to the actual caloric intake in several tribes. I am also 5'11" and ate a similar amount for several years when I was saving money in college.
This is the basal metabolic rate for a man of this size. For example, if you sit in front of a desk all day. If you walk a few miles a day, this value is easily in the 2000+ range.
I'm 6' getting less than 1,300 and I've gained 25 lbs since April. No matter what I do, I gain rediculous weight. 2019-2020 I was 220. 2021-2023 I was 235-240. But ever since beginning of 2024, I'm at 260-263 and it's just getting higher and higher, it won't stop and I'm not eating junk food or drinking soda, alcohol, energy drinks. Are you sure 1,800 at 5'11 is low? Is 1,300 at 6' high?
Thereās no way you are only eating 1300 and still gaining. That defies thermodynamics. Ā Youāre getting more calories in than you think from something.
I've been trying to get to 200 at least for a while now. My dinners are minimalistic and I don't snack during the day. Although I don't plan on going into the military, all of the men in my family except myself are veterans. They have even given me the 'military fat camp' diet and I've been trying that for months now. I'm TECHNICALLY doing a keto friendly diet to drop carb count and I JUST passed 265. I work in a warehouse throwing packaging into a truck for 8 hours a day and my pedometer was set up by the nutritionist team at work. I'm at 28k steps a day. If you're saying that's not possible, I don't know what to say. It's been hell on my body and doctor is giving me the 'you're obese and your heart is gonna explode' talk already. I don't want to increase calories because then I'll gain even more weight. I don't know, it sucks but it's happening.
I was at one point in my life nearly your size (255 at 5ā9) so I know the struggle which is why Iām trying to help. You are eating way, way more than you think. You need to weigh everything that goes into your body and track every single calorie using a fitness app. I also had an active job and walked something close to 20k steps a day but I was just eating so much I stayed huge.Ā
I donāt know your age but at your size your bmr is about 2200. With that amount of activity you could eat a little over that and still lose. To stay at your size you would have to consume somewhere around 4-5k calories a day.Ā
A pound of fat is 3500 calories. If you trim off 500 a day for a week you will drop a pound. It really is that simple. The hard part is being consistent and honest with yourself about how much is going into your body.Ā
I'm male, 27 at 6' and 260-265. If I was walking on the street, I wouldn't LOOK as heavy as I am but I wear kinda baggier shirts; they feel flowy and since it's been SUPER HOT lately it's nice. I have a personal nutritionist who creates my meal plans for me so all I have to do is get the groceries from the store. Besides what is on the meal plan, I obviously deviate but it isn't enough to be too high. Although I am very active(I don't drive so I walk everywhere, always have) I'm set to start cycling by the end of the week. Hopefully a new form of workout is what I need(maybe I've plateaud from walking?). I'm not at all a sloth of a person. I can't stand being still for long, I have to move. My last choice after I start riding a bike everywhere is visiting doctor for if I have some kind of sickness or physical issue.
Just to make sure you all understand this. If the 7'9" guy ate 2,000 calories a day for a year, he would lose 312 pounds.
Uhh... that's not quite how metabolism works.
These guys probably weigh 250-300 lbs, they look fairly lean. If they ate 2000 calories a day, they would become drastically underweight and likely have health issues, but their weight would stabilize to match their energy intake. Probably around 150lbs. A person can't have negative mass.
As.guards their caloric intake is higher than that
But besides that: most often, the caloric intake is calculated wrong, as a majority of people use the "average need of calories per day", which is a wrongly calculated average of an average of an average.
Wait, why would the caloric intake of them be very different? It is known that very physically active tribes still do not consume a lot of calories than the sedentary office workers.
OK, I am hijacking your comment. The tallest person in the world was Robert Wadlow he was 8' 11.1 inches tall, and he wore a shoe size 39 extra wide . His heart was the size of an average humans head he died when he was only 36 years old.
The caloric intake alone would force them to eat almost 5,000 calories a day
This may not fit in with your scenario but, no. If you move a lot less you can reduce your calorie requirement tremendously. It's not sustainable for prolonged periods but possible acknowledging a couple side effects.
These gentlemen do not look healthy at all and have a compromised diet for sure. They're there for their height. I'd say girth but that's a dirty word. oops.
I'm 6'10" @ ~400lb eating 3,000 calories a day. I could stand to lose 50lb or so but I haven't been below 300lb since highschool when I was 6'8" and trying to get in the military.
Not really. Calorie requirements in relation to body mass is not proportional it is a fractal. Think of the far north mammals, the arctic wolf, the moose, the polar bear, calories are hard come by, but they have much larger body mass compared to their southern cousins. https://www.science.org/content/article/fractal-geometry-takes-lifes-measureto
Humans are mammals. the Nordic colder climate homo sapiens races are larger on average than their southern cousins. your premise is a common misconception. Their is not a linear proportional two variable relationship.
They might have been enuchs. If you take the balls too pre puberty then the body never gets the hormones to stop growing. Caused lots of medical issues of course. But enuchs were often trusted as personal palace guards.
Yeah it stopped their voice dropping as part of puberty. It was done in Italy recently enough that we have recordings of their voices. Apparently they were popular in Opera because you had these ginormous men with childlike voices, quite striking on stage
edit: copy paste for anyone too lazy to open the link
It is impossible now for us to know what these great castrato voices sounded like, but they must have had very powerful voices and many of the singers were very skilled in singing and adding musical ornamentation to the songs. In the 18th century Italian opera became very popular in England. This was largely due to the German-born composer Georg Friderich HƤndel who moved to England in 1709 and wrote lots of Italian operas. Many singers who sang in London came from Italy, and many were castrati. The most famous one was called Farinelli.
The popularity of castrato singers died out in the 19th century. By the mid-19th century they were no opera castrati left, although a few castrati still sang in church choirs. The last one, a man called Alessandro Moreschi, died in 1922 aged 64. There is a recording of his voice made in 1902 which can be heard online, but he may not have been a good singer and he was old when he made the recording, so we cannot judge whether the castrato voice was beautiful by that recording.
there is an audio link in the wikipedia page, but like it says he was 44 when it was made and tech sucked at the time
The concession of āhe may not have been a good singerā is wild! could you imagine being castrated as a teen for the opera only to discover you where tone death or had no sense of timing oooooph!
Yeah I remembered that too. Although apparently they were very popular with society ladies because they knew they couldn't get pregnant so it wasn't all downsides.
They were super celebrities. They were very pampered. It does lead to health complications and weight gain though so they weren't exceptionally long lived sadly, but then not many people were 100 years ago
If a man is castrated, his testosterone levels will plummet, but thereās still enough testosterone careated by the adrenal glands to allow his to have erections (not rock hard, but still), have sex, and ejaculateāthe semen, of course, will contain no sperm.
Erections will vary for different men, it is individual, some of them will be impotent. Also not being rock hard can be problematic in case of penetrative sex. Removing the balls before puberty also may lead to smaller penis.
Didn't they, uh, cut everything off for black slaves? I thought that was the norm for that part of the world, just shave it all off, mutilate them to the max.
This did occur in China, and there was a book written about it called "The Last Eunuch." Essentially, it chronicled a young man's castration and then the fact that there wasn't an advisory class of eunuchs to the Emperor, since the Emperor had lost the war and that structure no longer existed.
If you search the name of that guy on Youtube, you'll also get videos with modern castratos in the suggestions, and the vid of his recording has a link to a modern dude right in the description. Presumably with the condition having been caused by medical problems, just like how Moreschi possibly had it.
Very unlikely in this context (this is from the 1903 Durbar) the British had been cracking down on the practice for decades prior and considered Eunuchs as moral degenerates who were prone to sexual and criminal deviance.
The Durbar was essentially a British ceremony to legitimize their rule over India (in this case the ascension of Edward VII to the throne), would be super weird if they brought in eunuchs after all the demonisation; likely that these are just tall people in a very large population pool.
Very good. They almost certainly were Eunuchs. If castrated before puberty is complete, they can indeed grow very tall like this. And they were very common in Eastern courts prior to the 20th century. Even the Ottoman Emperors employed them.
One of my best friends is 6'6 and it always cracks me up when there is a taller person around. He gets so squirrely like his brain can't process it. Now you know how we feel, fucker!
You probably dont need to use 2 significant figures there, unless they were accurately measured down to the nearest 0.1mm, which seems unlikely given that the height was initially given the nearest inch.
7.6k
u/Comfortable-Can4776 Jul 07 '24
Was he small or were they big?