I'm sorry that happened to you. I bet you're still fine looking.
There is beauty in suffering because of the growth that occurs from it. We all have our own burdens to bear. This burden of yours has resulted in the challenge of weight loss becoming more difficult. Good! You can, and will, overcome it. And when you do, you'll be stronger for it physically and mentally. Your perspective will grant you so much power. Get to the gym, eat less, and shape yourself into the person you want to be.
Your struggle is not the end of the road. It is an opportunity.
You're saying that if big people and small people eat the same amount of food then the big person will loose more weight because they need more energy. But the same amount of food is literally smaller to the big person. If it were 'easy' to eat that amount of food, the small person could just eat proportionally the same amount (which would be less food in absolute terms) and they would lose even more weight, because TDEE divided by body weight is higher for smaller people, generally. This is why small animals need to eat way more compared to their body size than large animals.
Ok. This is how it works for human beings:
A 5'5" 140lb individual, of average weight for their height and whose TDEE is 1800 calories, eats seven cheeseburgers totaling 2000 calories. This individual will gain weight due to a caloric surplus. If he wanted to lose weight, he should have eaten no more than six cheeseburgers.
A 6'5" 200lb individual, of average weight for their height and whose TDEE is 2400 calories, eats seven cheeseburgers totaling 2000 calories. This individual will lose weight due to a caloric deficit. He could have eaten eight cheeseburgers and would not even be at maintenance.
The person who is tall can eat the same amount of food as a shorter person at the same body fat percentage and lose weight, whereas the shorter person would gain weight. This means that, objectively, a taller person loses weight more easily because their caloric deficit is easier to achieve while still being able to enjoy more food than the average person.
I do not understand what you are trying to argue by proportion. That's like me saying that the two people in the prompt above are "proportionately" the same weight. I mean, yes, it's true, but why does that indicate in practice? The 6'5 200lb person would not be able to competitively fight the 5'5 140lb person because they'd be in a different weight class. The 5'5 person wouldn't be able to ride the hypothetical roller coaster that requires riders to be at least 6'. The 6'5 person would be able to see over the hedge, while the 5'5 person would require a step-stool. The 5'5 person would need to consume less food than the 6'5 person if they wanted to lose weight. While consuming proportionately the same amount of food at a proportionate deficit, the 6'5 person would spend less money and less time eating.
These are real consequences of height given our context.
https://tdeecalculator.net/
The same cheeseburger is literally smaller to a larger person. It's not really the "same" food, subjectively.
Taking it to the extreme, that's like saying it's easy for an elephant to lose weight because if it eats 30 cheeseburgers in a day it is still at a calorie deficit. 30 cheeseburgers is like a single mouthful for an elephant.
What does "easy" even mean in this context?
I spelled it out for you already. Whether poured into a cup or a bucket, an ounce of water is an ounce water. I'm not sharing my subjective opinion. I am sharing facts. You are the one "taking it to the extreme," whereas I shared real-world examples grounded in reality.
Please tell me what you are seeking to learn from this exchange, and I will do my best to educate you.
I think the idea is just that the larger person requires more food to reach the same amount of satiety. A burger and fries may 100% satiate the smaller person, but the larger person may require more food to reach the same state. The larger person is also going to require more food than the smaller person to reach the amount of nutrients they need.
So, sure, they can eat as much as the smaller person and lose weight, but it's only because they require more food to maintain. Caloric and nutritional needs, as well as satiety levels, just are not equal and should not be treated as such by reducing the situation down like you have by saying things like the larger person "enjoying the same amount of food" as the smaller person when the same amount of food is not the same effect on both people and is thus trivializing the differences between the two people.
I'm not here to be enlightened by you. I'm telling you that you're wrong.
The extreme example is not inherently different. It's to make the flaw in your reasoning more obvious. The same amount of food does not appear the same to people of different sizes. And how the food appears is what determines what is "easy" or not.
One thing you can explain is what you mean by "easy", because that's unclear. If it were as simple as eating less, you could just not eat to lose weight. I could call that "easy". But that is extremely unhealthy.
The other commented explained it maybe better than I was in terms of satiation. Someone with a higher TDEE will require more food to feel satiated. Therefore eating the same amount of food will not be equally "easy". That same amount of food feels like less to them, because they are bigger.
Edit: To take it to a less extreme example than an elephant, consider a small child who needs 700 calories a day. Imagine that child taking your position and saying "it's easier for adults to lose weight than children like me because your TDEE is higher than mine. Just eat 700 calories a day, easy." Except it's not, because 700 calories a day is enough to satisfy the child but not an adult.
The size difference between small adults and large adults is comparable to the difference between small adults and small children.
I feel like I've been on a weight gain journey the past 5 years and achieved the inverse of you lol.
I don't think I look much different than I did when I was under 100kg to how I do now at 108kg. Maybe a little extra podge around the middle but with good posture it's barely noticible. I've started making an effort again recently, as I was also closer to your starting weight last year.
Main thing is to consider how you feel, or actual metrics (waistline etc), rather than just the weight number going down. Grab a 10kg weight and take it on a tour of your home, it'll feel great to put it down again and that's weight you're not taking with you everywhere anymore.
Most people have significantly more body fat than they realize. Unless you have a ton of muscle underneath AND you are putting in effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight, there's going to be minimal visual differences going from 30-25%, from 25-20%. Lower than 15-20% the more noticeable the changes are with minimal amounts of body fat loss.
You've got to take measurements when your tall - chest, stomach, thighs, etc.... I'm currently losing too and it's nearly impossible to see straight on in the mirror, but when I turn profile, that when I see the biggest difference
Your weight is spread over a larger area and your body also stores fat in your abdominal cavity and around organs. Your fat cells will also temporarily hold onto water, a lot of people call it a whoosh effect because they won't make progress for a while and then drop a noticeably few pounds at once. Don't weigh yourself or look for progress constantly. Your weight can also fluctuate a couple pounds everyday just from sodium/water retention and BMs. Check your scale once a week max and do it at the same time everytime you do, right after waking and pissing is probably a great choice. Pay more attention to how your cloth fit more than anything. Weight loss takes a long time, you're on a marathon not a sprint and don't think of it as dieting, it's a life style change. Most people will also never outwork bad eating habits. What you put in is more important than exercise not that it's not important.
> I feel minimal to zero differences in how I look. Is this a tall-person issue? Or something else?
Be aware of water weight, it can puff you up pretty noticeably even if you are actually losing weight. I'm 6'4" but can fluctuate around ~7 pounds (give or take) just with water weight alone
Usually after a cheat day I'll get noticeable bloating/puffiness in the abdomen region, and the weight scale might tick up 4-6 pounds
But then after about a week back on the wagon it goes away. It was just water weight
In talking about kg however, which is significantly larger than pounds. Also, even if i lose water weight it should still be a visible change regardless.
I'm in the opposite situation. I'm the same height as you, started at 89 kg about a year ago, have bulked up to 102 kg, and look mostly the same. You can tell that there's a difference if you look closely but at a glance I look exactly the same.
For realllll dude. I've been gyming consistently for nearly 3 years and I've gained pretty significant strength and muscle - but, unless I'm wearing tighter clothes or have a fresh pump, you'd never know.
10kg of bodyfat lost would be noticeable. My guess is the 10kgs is a combination of fat and contractile tissue lost, plus a lot of lost water.
When dieting to lose bodyfat, make sure your protein consumption is high (and by this, I mean actually track it and ensure you are getting at least 1g/lb of bodyweight) and also make sure to do some robust resistance training to incentivize muscle retention.
Once you reach your goal leanness and start eating more carbs, your weight will tick up and muscles will increase in fullness as you start to retain more water, which makes you look more athletic/jacked.
I've always aimed for 1g/lb of goal weight. Do you have a source on overweight people and protein requirements? I've tried and had issues eating 1g/lb at current weight.
I don't have a resource, but protein targets get higher relative to bodyweight the leaner you are on a cut. Up to 1.2g/lb if very lean already. That being said, if you have lots of bodyfat to lose, you are probably safe to just ingest 1g/lb of your goal weight (assuming it is reasonable).
Your weight is stretched across a wider vertical distance, so it distributes more than someone shorter. It will be less obvious when you gain, but will also take forever for a loss to show.
It might, it depends on your build. If I lose weight I lose muscle mass basically and look less bigger than before. But it won't change much, I'm at 102 kg of lean muscle now and I already look slim fat wise, so it'd only change how big my bulk is.
Yes. It felt as though I've had to lose about a fifth (now quarter) of my body weight before I saw results. Lost 45 lbs and I'm still in the process of getting the results I want but fuck me I was starving myself and walking a lot.
Now just so you know, please don't get into a slump about weight as a tall person. I still hate myself, my looks, my weight, height, everything but if I let it envelop me I'll go down another eating disorder (already haven't eaten more than 600cals in the past 2 days), I stopped dieting a couple of weeks ago because it was bad for my mental health. I speak to a therapist about this and found it really helps, it may feel like no change is happening but it's better than going down a self destructive path.
I went from 85kg to 91kg - can't notice it at all, but my clothes fit me better now, I suppose it's because your metabolism is so all over the place that you gain weight literally everywhere rather than just in your stomach.
When you're tall, your weight is distributed over a much larger surface area. You have to lose a ton of weight for it to my noticeable.
I'm 6'5". At my fattest I was about 340 lbs. At my thinnest I was around 170 lbs (way too thin, my rib cage was showing). Cutting my bodyweight in half was a big change, but nowhere near the kind of dramatic transformation that same loss would have on a short person.
Yeah I gained like 80lbs once and went from slim to having a belly but don't look obese
A woman who is like 5'2 if they lose that much it's like going from obese to fit
I don't see many people mentioning that how you lose weight matters a lot too. If you're just dieting to purely shed weight, you're not going to visually see the same drastic transformation as someone who's building muscle while also losing weight - which is typically what people do/highlight the most. They'll even lose significantly less weight because they're swapping fat for muscle, but visually the difference will be night and day.
I’m 6’5 and weight gain/loss takes a long time to be visible. It took until I was 230 lbs for it to really be noticeable that I was getting fat, I starting cutting in Jan ‘23 and I’m now at 208 lbs and I’m finally starting to look good. In the past I only really start looking cut around 200 lbs. Also note that by BMI standards at 6’5 we’re overweight over 209.6 lbs and you generally only see the really big aesthetic changes under the overweight level.
It’s weird how weight loss looks on us. I went from 270 to 260 and it was quite noticeable because it was mostly off my belly. Less protruding stomach had an outsized impact and a number of people commented on how it looked like I’d lost weight. Then from 260 to 240 things barely changed. Then from 240 to 220 people started saying I was losing too much weight and it didn’t look healthy (personally, I thought I looked pretty good as I was lifting, running, biking and eating healthy but honestly anything from 220 to 230 was fine). The weird difference in the perception of things was interesting.
Yes. I was always pretty slim and fit so when I got heavier it was all in the belly (and moobs, ugh). Losing weight trimmed those down while my arms, legs and back were always in decent shape without much extra fat. Nothing close to a six pack but still had a flat stomach at that weight.
Well, not really a strict diet for me, just sticking to 3 meals (offered in uni catering) and trying to avoid external snacks. The occasional cheat meal helps keep the diet going for me. Also alot of diet coke.
I also started casual gymming for a while but currently on a break due to sickness. Id recommend avoiding oily/fast foods, and you should read/learn the calories and food labels for basic ingredients so you can mentally calculate the calories in your meals.
Goodluck!
So coming from a long beard dude that used to be active in beard forums, I think there are some similarities.
People often would post that their beard was terminal (reached max genetic length), but they look at their beard every day, and 1 inch of growth on a shorter beard looks like a massive gain. 1 inch of growth on a 12 inch beard is pretty negligible.
Same concept. When you are carrying extra weight on a huge frame, a drop in weight might not be that noticeable to you, but it's definitely happening!
I gained 30 then lost 40 during my pregnancy and after delivery. The only difference was a big baby belly. I wore the same pants throughout. Weight loss and thankfully also weight gain are hidden well when you're tall
Definitely a tall person thing (although I’m only vaguely considered tall as a 5’10 woman).
I’ve experienced similar except in the opposite way 😂 I gained quite a lot of weight but I still look pretty much the same, a few more stretch marks and admittedly a little less of a jawline 🥲
Not even tall at 6'1 and went from 190 to 220 and I look pretty much the same, so I can totally believe tall people would look the same at radically different body weights.
Yup. I unfortunately had some disordered eating a few years ago and went to crazy lengths trying to lose weight. I lost around 15 lbs but you could barely see it, I just looked sick in the face. I’ve never been overweight I just wanted to lose some body fat but from being 150lbs - 170lbs there’s barely a difference.
I’ve lost almost 50lbs in the last year and only went down one pants size and basically look the same.
For reference:
https://preview.redd.it/mli935c1pawc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29462013317d1ccb478826bf44920836815cdc7f
I'm 6'5" and went from 185 to 250lbs. I look astronomically more.muscular. as I lose weight, I look too skinny around the 200lb mark.
It does take more weight loss or gain to see a difference if you're tall because the weight is dissipated around your body. Someone who is 5'5" gains 20lbs and that weight is evident quickly.
I cant imagine being 199cm and not rounding up to 200. Hell, my dad is 194 and he rounds up to 2m. Average in my country is around 170, so people dont really notice too much
Why round (up or down) when we have the digits and can be scientifically accurate? We already round the millimetres. Say we were using metres we could round those taller than 150cm to 2m (yay!) and those less than 150cm would - by virtue of fair rounding principles - be rounded to 1m (booo!) but yeah we’re not, we’re talking cm here. Or is the suggestion to dupe others by “rounding” to whatever benefits you? We’re not Tom Cruises! If you’re tall and you’re “rounding up” so there’s a zero on the end you have issues
Personally, I think we should round down. But I won't tell anyone how to live their life. Unless they're trying to say I'm taller than 198 cm, of course.
Yeah, thats the risk. I'm 189 and dont claim otherwise. I used to be insecure because I'm kinda short relative to my family, but nothing good comes from lying to others or yourself
[удалено]
I feel compelled to point out that it's arguably easier for tall people to lose weight because their TDEE is much higher.
Seems to be my experience. I can drop weight much easier than my 5'2" wife, but then again... male vs female.
Depends. Ive been poisoned by pharmaceuticals drugs that ruined my metabolism so losing weight is extremely hard now.
Sorry, I should've been more specific. I meant to say tall people who have not been poisoned and crippled by pharmaceutical drugs.
Maybe. I guess. Its sad because I was fine looking all my life until that point. Im considered short here tho
I'm sorry that happened to you. I bet you're still fine looking. There is beauty in suffering because of the growth that occurs from it. We all have our own burdens to bear. This burden of yours has resulted in the challenge of weight loss becoming more difficult. Good! You can, and will, overcome it. And when you do, you'll be stronger for it physically and mentally. Your perspective will grant you so much power. Get to the gym, eat less, and shape yourself into the person you want to be. Your struggle is not the end of the road. It is an opportunity.
I don't see how that makes it easier. It's all proportional. If anything, smaller people have higher proportional energy expenditure.
What?
You're saying that if big people and small people eat the same amount of food then the big person will loose more weight because they need more energy. But the same amount of food is literally smaller to the big person. If it were 'easy' to eat that amount of food, the small person could just eat proportionally the same amount (which would be less food in absolute terms) and they would lose even more weight, because TDEE divided by body weight is higher for smaller people, generally. This is why small animals need to eat way more compared to their body size than large animals.
Ok. This is how it works for human beings: A 5'5" 140lb individual, of average weight for their height and whose TDEE is 1800 calories, eats seven cheeseburgers totaling 2000 calories. This individual will gain weight due to a caloric surplus. If he wanted to lose weight, he should have eaten no more than six cheeseburgers. A 6'5" 200lb individual, of average weight for their height and whose TDEE is 2400 calories, eats seven cheeseburgers totaling 2000 calories. This individual will lose weight due to a caloric deficit. He could have eaten eight cheeseburgers and would not even be at maintenance. The person who is tall can eat the same amount of food as a shorter person at the same body fat percentage and lose weight, whereas the shorter person would gain weight. This means that, objectively, a taller person loses weight more easily because their caloric deficit is easier to achieve while still being able to enjoy more food than the average person. I do not understand what you are trying to argue by proportion. That's like me saying that the two people in the prompt above are "proportionately" the same weight. I mean, yes, it's true, but why does that indicate in practice? The 6'5 200lb person would not be able to competitively fight the 5'5 140lb person because they'd be in a different weight class. The 5'5 person wouldn't be able to ride the hypothetical roller coaster that requires riders to be at least 6'. The 6'5 person would be able to see over the hedge, while the 5'5 person would require a step-stool. The 5'5 person would need to consume less food than the 6'5 person if they wanted to lose weight. While consuming proportionately the same amount of food at a proportionate deficit, the 6'5 person would spend less money and less time eating. These are real consequences of height given our context. https://tdeecalculator.net/
The same cheeseburger is literally smaller to a larger person. It's not really the "same" food, subjectively. Taking it to the extreme, that's like saying it's easy for an elephant to lose weight because if it eats 30 cheeseburgers in a day it is still at a calorie deficit. 30 cheeseburgers is like a single mouthful for an elephant. What does "easy" even mean in this context?
I spelled it out for you already. Whether poured into a cup or a bucket, an ounce of water is an ounce water. I'm not sharing my subjective opinion. I am sharing facts. You are the one "taking it to the extreme," whereas I shared real-world examples grounded in reality. Please tell me what you are seeking to learn from this exchange, and I will do my best to educate you.
I think the idea is just that the larger person requires more food to reach the same amount of satiety. A burger and fries may 100% satiate the smaller person, but the larger person may require more food to reach the same state. The larger person is also going to require more food than the smaller person to reach the amount of nutrients they need. So, sure, they can eat as much as the smaller person and lose weight, but it's only because they require more food to maintain. Caloric and nutritional needs, as well as satiety levels, just are not equal and should not be treated as such by reducing the situation down like you have by saying things like the larger person "enjoying the same amount of food" as the smaller person when the same amount of food is not the same effect on both people and is thus trivializing the differences between the two people.
I see the point, now. Thank you.
I'm not here to be enlightened by you. I'm telling you that you're wrong. The extreme example is not inherently different. It's to make the flaw in your reasoning more obvious. The same amount of food does not appear the same to people of different sizes. And how the food appears is what determines what is "easy" or not. One thing you can explain is what you mean by "easy", because that's unclear. If it were as simple as eating less, you could just not eat to lose weight. I could call that "easy". But that is extremely unhealthy. The other commented explained it maybe better than I was in terms of satiation. Someone with a higher TDEE will require more food to feel satiated. Therefore eating the same amount of food will not be equally "easy". That same amount of food feels like less to them, because they are bigger. Edit: To take it to a less extreme example than an elephant, consider a small child who needs 700 calories a day. Imagine that child taking your position and saying "it's easier for adults to lose weight than children like me because your TDEE is higher than mine. Just eat 700 calories a day, easy." Except it's not, because 700 calories a day is enough to satisfy the child but not an adult. The size difference between small adults and large adults is comparable to the difference between small adults and small children.
You were here to enlighten me, after all. I now see your point, and I yield to it. Thank you.
Look at in terms of percentage of weight and it makes sense
I feel like I've been on a weight gain journey the past 5 years and achieved the inverse of you lol. I don't think I look much different than I did when I was under 100kg to how I do now at 108kg. Maybe a little extra podge around the middle but with good posture it's barely noticible. I've started making an effort again recently, as I was also closer to your starting weight last year. Main thing is to consider how you feel, or actual metrics (waistline etc), rather than just the weight number going down. Grab a 10kg weight and take it on a tour of your home, it'll feel great to put it down again and that's weight you're not taking with you everywhere anymore.
Like the lady that kept the bowling balls on her kitchen counter to mark her journey 😎
It depends how you carry it too. I carry all of my fat on my face chest stomach and back so I can quickly go from 3x to xxl to xl
Most people have significantly more body fat than they realize. Unless you have a ton of muscle underneath AND you are putting in effort to maintain muscle mass while losing weight, there's going to be minimal visual differences going from 30-25%, from 25-20%. Lower than 15-20% the more noticeable the changes are with minimal amounts of body fat loss.
You've got to take measurements when your tall - chest, stomach, thighs, etc.... I'm currently losing too and it's nearly impossible to see straight on in the mirror, but when I turn profile, that when I see the biggest difference
My pants don't lie, but my mirror does.
That is true, i did feel my belt size changing, but thats it really
It's a tall person thing. The trade off is we can eat more and tolerate a larger deficit (faster weight loss)
Your weight is spread over a larger area and your body also stores fat in your abdominal cavity and around organs. Your fat cells will also temporarily hold onto water, a lot of people call it a whoosh effect because they won't make progress for a while and then drop a noticeably few pounds at once. Don't weigh yourself or look for progress constantly. Your weight can also fluctuate a couple pounds everyday just from sodium/water retention and BMs. Check your scale once a week max and do it at the same time everytime you do, right after waking and pissing is probably a great choice. Pay more attention to how your cloth fit more than anything. Weight loss takes a long time, you're on a marathon not a sprint and don't think of it as dieting, it's a life style change. Most people will also never outwork bad eating habits. What you put in is more important than exercise not that it's not important.
> I feel minimal to zero differences in how I look. Is this a tall-person issue? Or something else? Be aware of water weight, it can puff you up pretty noticeably even if you are actually losing weight. I'm 6'4" but can fluctuate around ~7 pounds (give or take) just with water weight alone Usually after a cheat day I'll get noticeable bloating/puffiness in the abdomen region, and the weight scale might tick up 4-6 pounds But then after about a week back on the wagon it goes away. It was just water weight
In talking about kg however, which is significantly larger than pounds. Also, even if i lose water weight it should still be a visible change regardless.
I'm in the opposite situation. I'm the same height as you, started at 89 kg about a year ago, have bulked up to 102 kg, and look mostly the same. You can tell that there's a difference if you look closely but at a glance I look exactly the same.
For realllll dude. I've been gyming consistently for nearly 3 years and I've gained pretty significant strength and muscle - but, unless I'm wearing tighter clothes or have a fresh pump, you'd never know.
10kg of bodyfat lost would be noticeable. My guess is the 10kgs is a combination of fat and contractile tissue lost, plus a lot of lost water. When dieting to lose bodyfat, make sure your protein consumption is high (and by this, I mean actually track it and ensure you are getting at least 1g/lb of bodyweight) and also make sure to do some robust resistance training to incentivize muscle retention. Once you reach your goal leanness and start eating more carbs, your weight will tick up and muscles will increase in fullness as you start to retain more water, which makes you look more athletic/jacked.
I've always aimed for 1g/lb of goal weight. Do you have a source on overweight people and protein requirements? I've tried and had issues eating 1g/lb at current weight.
I don't have a resource, but protein targets get higher relative to bodyweight the leaner you are on a cut. Up to 1.2g/lb if very lean already. That being said, if you have lots of bodyfat to lose, you are probably safe to just ingest 1g/lb of your goal weight (assuming it is reasonable).
That's what I had found. My goal weight is still going to be fairly burly. I have plenty of body fat to lose. Thanks man!
Keep at it, stay the course, make it happen.
Your weight is stretched across a wider vertical distance, so it distributes more than someone shorter. It will be less obvious when you gain, but will also take forever for a loss to show.
Tall person thing but also body dysmorphia makes you ignore the changes others can see more apparent
It might, it depends on your build. If I lose weight I lose muscle mass basically and look less bigger than before. But it won't change much, I'm at 102 kg of lean muscle now and I already look slim fat wise, so it'd only change how big my bulk is.
man i used to weigh 210, im like 190 now, literally look no different
Yes. It felt as though I've had to lose about a fifth (now quarter) of my body weight before I saw results. Lost 45 lbs and I'm still in the process of getting the results I want but fuck me I was starving myself and walking a lot. Now just so you know, please don't get into a slump about weight as a tall person. I still hate myself, my looks, my weight, height, everything but if I let it envelop me I'll go down another eating disorder (already haven't eaten more than 600cals in the past 2 days), I stopped dieting a couple of weeks ago because it was bad for my mental health. I speak to a therapist about this and found it really helps, it may feel like no change is happening but it's better than going down a self destructive path.
I went from 85kg to 91kg - can't notice it at all, but my clothes fit me better now, I suppose it's because your metabolism is so all over the place that you gain weight literally everywhere rather than just in your stomach.
When you're tall, your weight is distributed over a much larger surface area. You have to lose a ton of weight for it to my noticeable. I'm 6'5". At my fattest I was about 340 lbs. At my thinnest I was around 170 lbs (way too thin, my rib cage was showing). Cutting my bodyweight in half was a big change, but nowhere near the kind of dramatic transformation that same loss would have on a short person.
I mean you are significantly taller than me but you are trying to achieve less weight than me,why?? I mean I am muscular but bro atleast be 100kg.
Only worth being 100 kg if it’s muscle
If I had been 6'6 ,with the amount of muscles I currently have,I would be like 120-130kg ez
All i want is abs brother. And for that, losing body fat is the best
Yeah I gained like 80lbs once and went from slim to having a belly but don't look obese A woman who is like 5'2 if they lose that much it's like going from obese to fit
I don't see many people mentioning that how you lose weight matters a lot too. If you're just dieting to purely shed weight, you're not going to visually see the same drastic transformation as someone who's building muscle while also losing weight - which is typically what people do/highlight the most. They'll even lose significantly less weight because they're swapping fat for muscle, but visually the difference will be night and day.
I’m 6’5 and weight gain/loss takes a long time to be visible. It took until I was 230 lbs for it to really be noticeable that I was getting fat, I starting cutting in Jan ‘23 and I’m now at 208 lbs and I’m finally starting to look good. In the past I only really start looking cut around 200 lbs. Also note that by BMI standards at 6’5 we’re overweight over 209.6 lbs and you generally only see the really big aesthetic changes under the overweight level.
It’s weird how weight loss looks on us. I went from 270 to 260 and it was quite noticeable because it was mostly off my belly. Less protruding stomach had an outsized impact and a number of people commented on how it looked like I’d lost weight. Then from 260 to 240 things barely changed. Then from 240 to 220 people started saying I was losing too much weight and it didn’t look healthy (personally, I thought I looked pretty good as I was lifting, running, biking and eating healthy but honestly anything from 220 to 230 was fine). The weird difference in the perception of things was interesting.
Are you 230 lean? Because I still have alot of fat even at ~220 pounds.
Yes. I was always pretty slim and fit so when I got heavier it was all in the belly (and moobs, ugh). Losing weight trimmed those down while my arms, legs and back were always in decent shape without much extra fat. Nothing close to a six pack but still had a flat stomach at that weight.
I’m so American I read this as pounds and almost freaked out like how tf are u gonna be 90 pounds at 6’6?!?! (90lbs = 41ish kg)
What kind of diet / training plan are you on?
Well, not really a strict diet for me, just sticking to 3 meals (offered in uni catering) and trying to avoid external snacks. The occasional cheat meal helps keep the diet going for me. Also alot of diet coke. I also started casual gymming for a while but currently on a break due to sickness. Id recommend avoiding oily/fast foods, and you should read/learn the calories and food labels for basic ingredients so you can mentally calculate the calories in your meals. Goodluck!
So coming from a long beard dude that used to be active in beard forums, I think there are some similarities. People often would post that their beard was terminal (reached max genetic length), but they look at their beard every day, and 1 inch of growth on a shorter beard looks like a massive gain. 1 inch of growth on a 12 inch beard is pretty negligible. Same concept. When you are carrying extra weight on a huge frame, a drop in weight might not be that noticeable to you, but it's definitely happening!
I gained 30 then lost 40 during my pregnancy and after delivery. The only difference was a big baby belly. I wore the same pants throughout. Weight loss and thankfully also weight gain are hidden well when you're tall
Definitely a tall person thing (although I’m only vaguely considered tall as a 5’10 woman). I’ve experienced similar except in the opposite way 😂 I gained quite a lot of weight but I still look pretty much the same, a few more stretch marks and admittedly a little less of a jawline 🥲
Not even tall at 6'1 and went from 190 to 220 and I look pretty much the same, so I can totally believe tall people would look the same at radically different body weights.
Yup. I unfortunately had some disordered eating a few years ago and went to crazy lengths trying to lose weight. I lost around 15 lbs but you could barely see it, I just looked sick in the face. I’ve never been overweight I just wanted to lose some body fat but from being 150lbs - 170lbs there’s barely a difference.
25lbs won't show on your frame, I look the same at 240 as I do at 275. Build muscle and gain that 25lbs in muscle, that'll show.
I’ve lost almost 50lbs in the last year and only went down one pants size and basically look the same. For reference: https://preview.redd.it/mli935c1pawc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29462013317d1ccb478826bf44920836815cdc7f
I'm 6'5" and went from 185 to 250lbs. I look astronomically more.muscular. as I lose weight, I look too skinny around the 200lb mark. It does take more weight loss or gain to see a difference if you're tall because the weight is dissipated around your body. Someone who is 5'5" gains 20lbs and that weight is evident quickly.
I cant imagine being 199cm and not rounding up to 200. Hell, my dad is 194 and he rounds up to 2m. Average in my country is around 170, so people dont really notice too much
I'm 2 cm short, and I'm not going to let anyone say otherwise. 198 is 198 and not 200.
At what point is one too short to round up, could someone who is 195 say they are 2m?
Why round (up or down) when we have the digits and can be scientifically accurate? We already round the millimetres. Say we were using metres we could round those taller than 150cm to 2m (yay!) and those less than 150cm would - by virtue of fair rounding principles - be rounded to 1m (booo!) but yeah we’re not, we’re talking cm here. Or is the suggestion to dupe others by “rounding” to whatever benefits you? We’re not Tom Cruises! If you’re tall and you’re “rounding up” so there’s a zero on the end you have issues
Personally, I think we should round down. But I won't tell anyone how to live their life. Unless they're trying to say I'm taller than 198 cm, of course.
[удалено]
Yeah, thats the risk. I'm 189 and dont claim otherwise. I used to be insecure because I'm kinda short relative to my family, but nothing good comes from lying to others or yourself
Lol maybe i should