"Weight is too hard to maintain"?

Options
2»

Replies

  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    See, even if it's a loss of only 5 pounds maintenance means keeping constant watch not to regain. When you were 150 you ate things without having to think about it too much because that was the weight your body settled at when you ate ad libitum. Now 140 may not be that much lower in maintenance calories, but you can't eat ad libitum without a thought and not expect to regain unless you've made some permanent changes. And even then other things may change without you noticing and cause you to gain back.
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,575 Member
    Options
    astrose00 wrote: »
    arditarose wrote: »
    astrose00 wrote: »
    Yeah, maintenance terrifies me. I can lose weight like it's my job. Maintaining, not-so-much. I will just have to be as OCD as when I'm losing. I have a spreadsheet, already, that will manage what I can eat "normally" and still be able to go out for drinks and food without worrying. I was hoping I would be able to manage it.

    You got it figured out. I'm a hot mess. You'll be great.

    Ya know what? You don't LOOK a hot mess. I'll take that body and hot messedness in a heart beat. You can have my OCD.

    Hahaha. Thanks! I'm bad with data, not being careful enough, and not losing. I'm only 6 pounds away from goal though so I'm not freaking. At least if I was you I could analyze my diet better :)
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    arditarose wrote: »
    I'm in to lurk. Though I don't know the answer to this. I just plugged the stats for a 5'4" woman at 140 and 150 lbs with the same activity level into the scooby TDEE calculator and the calorie difference is only 68.

    chocolate
  • astrose00
    astrose00 Posts: 754 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    See, even if it's a loss of only 5 pounds maintenance means keeping constant watch not to regain. When you were 150 you ate things without having to think about it too much because that was the weight your body settled at when you ate ad libitum. Now 140 may not be that much lower in maintenance calories, but you can't eat ad libitum without a thought and not expect to regain unless you've made some permanent changes. And even then other things may change without you noticing and cause you to gain back.

    I mostly agree except I was a constant yo-yo'er. So I was never finding maintenance and staying there. Now I realize, for ME, I have to monitor forever. I've accepted it. I'm willing to do that so I never let what happened to me happen again. I was yo-yo'ing then got injured and gain a ton of weight. Life happens so I never want to be in that position again. I see my mom, who is overweight, struggle to walk across the room or step up ONE step. I have so many reasons to get this right this time. 140 give me a buffer. I'm will be happy to add LBM to that because it will give me more of a buffer and increase my metabolism.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    astrose00 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    See, even if it's a loss of only 5 pounds maintenance means keeping constant watch not to regain. When you were 150 you ate things without having to think about it too much because that was the weight your body settled at when you ate ad libitum. Now 140 may not be that much lower in maintenance calories, but you can't eat ad libitum without a thought and not expect to regain unless you've made some permanent changes. And even then other things may change without you noticing and cause you to gain back.

    I mostly agree except I was a constant yo-yo'er. So I was never finding maintenance and staying there. Now I realize, for ME, I have to monitor forever. I've accepted it. I'm willing to do that so I never let what happened to me happen again. I was yo-yo'ing then got injured and gain a ton of weight. Life happens so I never want to be in that position again. I see my mom, who is overweight, struggle to walk across the room or step up ONE step. I have so many reasons to get this right this time. 140 give me a buffer. I'm will be happy to add LBM to that because it will give me more of a buffer and increase my metabolism.

    Now in your case it may not be that much different to maintain 140 if 150 was was not a stable weight and you were consciously maintaining it (through yo-yoing). I have also accepted I will have to watch my intake for life, because as a person who used to be 300+ pounds my maintenance calories are more than 1000 calories lower than what I used to eat and if I let go even for a couple of months I would gain too much too fast to catch it before it happens.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    Options
    Actually, I understand this. I maintained a weight of 101 for nearly 18 months. It was pretty hard to do. I allowed my self to gain 5 pounds by upping my calories about 150. This number may not be exactly what a calculator says would maintain my weight, but experience proves otherwise. That 150 makes a big difference in my quality of life.
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    For me, a possible underlying assumption is simply false: I haven't been losing weight by consistently hitting any target. Sometimes I'm exercising way more and just in general being very active, not boredom eating, etc and losing very steadily. Other times, well, the opposite may be the case. So for me it's not so much about being at a number as it is about being around a number. How consistently can I follow the process before I start to deviate and hit my targets with a lot less consistency? When you have more weight to loss, missing those targets could still mean with loss. With a smaller deficit, doing the same = maintenance or weight gain. And when you're compliant again, do you get *to* a certain number, or below, which will act as a buffer the next time your weight is going up? Can you follow the process consistently enough to hit and stay at 140, or 150? I would say this is one of the reasons sometimes, you just don't know your maintenance weight until you get there
  • astrose00
    astrose00 Posts: 754 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    astrose00 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    See, even if it's a loss of only 5 pounds maintenance means keeping constant watch not to regain. When you were 150 you ate things without having to think about it too much because that was the weight your body settled at when you ate ad libitum. Now 140 may not be that much lower in maintenance calories, but you can't eat ad libitum without a thought and not expect to regain unless you've made some permanent changes. And even then other things may change without you noticing and cause you to gain back.

    I mostly agree except I was a constant yo-yo'er. So I was never finding maintenance and staying there. Now I realize, for ME, I have to monitor forever. I've accepted it. I'm willing to do that so I never let what happened to me happen again. I was yo-yo'ing then got injured and gain a ton of weight. Life happens so I never want to be in that position again. I see my mom, who is overweight, struggle to walk across the room or step up ONE step. I have so many reasons to get this right this time. 140 give me a buffer. I'm will be happy to add LBM to that because it will give me more of a buffer and increase my metabolism.

    Now in your case it may not be that much different to maintain 140 if 150 was was not a stable weight and you were consciously maintaining it (through yo-yoing). I have also accepted I will have to watch my intake for life, because as a person who used to be 300+ pounds my maintenance calories are more than 1000 calories lower than what I used to eat and if I let go even for a couple of months I would gain too much too fast to catch it before it happens.

    Wow, congrats on your loss! I admire people who have the perseverance to do this. I can definitely understand your concern. My highest was 240 which I got to almost overnight. It was so unnatural for me, I'm small to medium frame, that the weight literally is falling off. I don't even have stretch marks or lose skins and have lost nearly 60lbs in 5 months. Normal or easy for me is probably around 160 by your definition. I wouldn't have to work to stay there. But for vanity reasons, I really want to get to what I think 140lbs would look like.
  • astrose00
    astrose00 Posts: 754 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    For me, a possible underlying assumption is simply false: I haven't been losing weight by consistently hitting any target. Sometimes I'm exercising way more and just in general being very active, not boredom eating, etc and losing very steadily. Other times, well, the opposite may be the case. So for me it's not so much about being at a number as it is about being around a number. How consistently can I follow the process before I start to deviate and hit my targets with a lot less consistency? When you have more weight to loss, missing those targets could still mean with loss. With a smaller deficit, doing the same = maintenance or weight gain. And when you're compliant again, do you get *to* a certain number, or below, which will act as a buffer the next time your weight is going up? Can you follow the process consistently enough to hit and stay at 140, or 150? I would say this is one of the reasons sometimes, you just don't know your maintenance weight until you get there
    I agree. I plan to have a range and will weigh daily. I know I easily let myself gain weight because I refused to get on the scale and acknowledge what I was doing. Almost like I thought I could fool my own self. I was afraid to wake up the OCD me who would have nipped all that overeating foolishness in the bud.

Categories