From skwigg's journal: I find the short/tall, food intake thing fascinating and would love to hear more thoughts. At 5'8" I can't eat anywhere near as much as my brother who's 6'2", and who probably has a 20 pound maintenance range in which his clothes still fit. Or I remember comparing myself to Amber who is only an inch taller but had like 30 pounds of muscle on me and was able to maintain a lean body on a thousand calories per day more. I hadn't really formed the thought (at least recently) that it was unfair. If we're all eating to appetite, it's the same. Right? Or is that crazy talk? They need more food to eat to satisfaction, but I get to eat to complete satisfaction for my size too. Maybe it all goes wrong (or feels like it) when we're comparing numbers instead of wellbeing. They get to eat/wear/maintain bigger numbers, but I get to feel the same pleasure while eating, the same level of fullness, the same satisfaction after a good meal. My stomach just fills up faster than a bigger person's. So maybe it gets weird when appetite isn't the determining factor for how much to eat? I couldn't eat to appetite for a long time. I wouldn't have recognized my appetite if it bit me in the face. I was eating for so many other reasons - restriction, rebellion, environment, nutritionism, math, clocks. In that instance, reality becomes, "I get 1,162 calories and that person over there gets 9,374." That would feel very unfair. Or, I remember in Body for Life days, when portions were measured with palms and fists, being somewhat jealous of people with bigger hands. When we're restricting and hungry as hell, the food coveting does go waaaaay up. I used to guard my food, lick every last drop out of containers, and get angry if anyone suggested sharing. In that state, eating to appetite and experiencing satisfaction isn't even a thing. I felt like I had no off switch.