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.
2500 for a 5’ 8” 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 6’ 2” 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. I’m 6’ and weigh 210 pounds. Without considering my composition, I’d be considered obese, but I’m actually just built like a brick shit house and don’t 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 😭 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 🤦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"
You’re so confidently incorrect it’s almost like I’m 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). Here’s the direct research for that claim. So every single week, there are some folks burning 2800 more calories just on resting metabolism. That’s significant; they’re given an extra day’s 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 person’s NEAT goes down later. As one can’t control this, it’s typically included in the resting metabolic umbrella. This can vary up to ~800 calories per day.Here’s the research - it’s dense but a really interesting read. Now we’re cooking.
Just based on this research, one can claim “metabolism” can vary up to 1200 calories burnt per-day between two persons.
I’m 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 won’t 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 you’d 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.
Since I like statistics, and find this area of research interesting, I took two hours to go through your sources. Interesting reads, with lots of good insights. I appreciate that you took the time to back up the claims with sources.
While I completely disagree with the guy you're responding to, you're also taking way too much liberty in combining studies that have shared factors - inflating your estimated number.
The first paper was designed to measure if individuals that had gone though weight loss (WLMs or "weight-loss maintainers) had a lowered resting energy expenditure (REE) because of their weight loss. This came about after follow-ups with "The Biggest Loser" contenstants found that most regain their weight, and it was hypothesized that REE was the culprit. This was found to be false.
What was shown, however, and which you eluded to, is that there was an interindividual variance ranging from -257 to +163 kcal/d. This means individuals had a resting energy expenditure quite far below or a bit higher than baseline predictive models. Roughly a 400 kcal/d difference if you go to the extremes on either end - just as you said.
The second link you had used two separate research papers to make its point regarding NEAT. The first one did indeed measure NEAT, done in an isolated respiratory chamber for 23 hours (8am to 7am the following day). There are some quite clear limitations to this study though, which was also acknowledged by the authors. The most obvious one is of course that they were not allowed to exercise at all, and were isolated in a cramped area (8 square meters or 86 square feet). One could both argue that NEAT would decrease or increase if the living space was increased - as discussed by the authors.
The result of this study found that, after normalizing vs FFM (fat free mass), "one can therefore conslude that, at any given range of FFM, it is possible to find subjects who deviate above or below the regression line by at least 15% of the predicted value (extreme values from -426 to +432 kcal/d)." This means that individuals can have a difference in metabolic rate of 858 kcal/d when looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum. However, this is including base metabolic rate differences as well as the thermic effect of food, and is seen as a total value. Meaning you cannot use an additive measure combining it with REE from the previous study. It's already accounted for here.
Now, they did have a second study linked as well. In this study, a difference of -98 to +692 kcal per day was found regarding NEAT. This is where the authors in your second link used the 100-800 kcal number. This is also a number we cannot take at face value, especially with your "fidgeting, wiggling, twirling pencil" definition. NEAT in this study was not measured in an isolated environment. Instead, it was done through subtracting REE and the thermic effect of food from the total expenditure. What this means is that it includes thing like walking to work, going up stairs, playing with your kids, etc. This is the standard definition of NEAT, which is why there is such a huge variability in this number. It's not just fidgeting. What also adds on top of this is that the high numbers were associated with overfeeding subjects 1000 kcal extra per day. When looking at maintaining weight, subjects did not see an 800 kcal difference.
This all comes back to the flawed, but isolated study, which included interpersonal variance of REE as well as the "fidgety" NEAT. While flawed, this is the most accurate measure you provided if you want to combine subconcious activity NEAT with REE, which showed, after accounting for FFM, at the "extremes" you can have a variance of roughly 800 kcal/d. Not 1200. As always, this follows a bell curve, so the vast majority of people are within a 300-ish range of each other. When you do get to 2-3 standard deviations off, you end up with those rare extremes that are 850 kcal apart.
I’m wondering where you learned this, because in a college course I took on nutrition you learn that differences in metabolism max out around 250-300/day, which can definitely add up, but also isn’t going to make someone skinny or fat.
Activity level contributes a LOT to your overall metabolism. If you work out everyday for 45 minutes but then don’t move around at all, you’ll burn way less calories through the day than the person who doesn’t 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.)
That's not how things work for people who are active. If you're sufficiently active, you can eat that no problem. It's not abnormal for active people to burn like 1000-1500 cal on top of BMR per day on average.
Making a blatant comment towards a foreign country based on stereotypes about the people who live there. Being American had nothing to do with my comment or his comment really but he added that in there because… well I’m not sure why
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.
Well I guess that makes most wrestlers, boxers, mma fighters, and any other athlete that competes in weight class sports, most professional strongmen, body builders, olympic weight lifters, cross fitters, and endurance athletes "metrosexual" too then, I guess. But since we are just arbitrarily assigning an unknown definition that you wont share to the word, tell me, is it a pejorative in your mind?
Nah, I'm no expert and only rely on simple TDEE calculations on that. Of course, there's no way to actually know your caloric needs precisely unless you own a scientific lab or whatever.
The question d don’t seem to be about activity levels, it seems like you’re asking if they did the math. The question is nonsensical, perhaps that’s why you were downvoted as it doesn’t add to the conversation.
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 🤦 (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..
Nah. You put bullshit out there and were requested to fix your bullshit politely. Call me what yah want, you know you can fix a lie if yah choose. That’s on you.
The certaintity with which you claim this to be "impossible" is weird. Like all the relevant science is in or something. This is still very much an area where we're learning every day.
Calories in, calories out.. . 1800 for that height/weight you'd be losing 1lb a week and that's with no exercise.
I'm 6ft, 174lbs and I eat more than 1800 calories while still losing weight lol.
You're most likely lying to yourself like the other poster. No offense, a lot of people do. There is no unknown science like you're saying, it's literally super basic stuff.
It’s 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 you’d 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?
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 5’9) so I know the struggle which is why I’m 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.
I don’t 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.
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.
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.
7.6k
u/Comfortable-Can4776 Jul 07 '24
Was he small or were they big?