Eat for your goal weight-has anyone tried that?
breezedaze
Posts: 357 Member
Hi;
I'm curious. I have a friend who did this and swears by it. She lost 35lbs.
When she started on her weight loss journey (she cut back portions, monitoring calories and started walking) a few years back she told me that she was doing something that kind of made sense. I've seen it talked about in here also.
Basically she set her goal weight ( I think it was 150lbs for her) and then calculated what the calorie range for maintenance was at that weight given her activity level, age etc.
Then that's what she set her daily calorie intake at (it was somewhere around 1700--I'm going to call her next week to see if I'm remembering right) and she ate that or right around that and over time, took her perhaps a year, she got to her goal weight or close to it and has stayed at goal since. At the time I thought it made sense.
I haven't started it myself but am considering giving it a try. Has anyone tried it?
It sounds logical. And a good way to calculate what your calorie intake should be.
I'm curious. I have a friend who did this and swears by it. She lost 35lbs.
When she started on her weight loss journey (she cut back portions, monitoring calories and started walking) a few years back she told me that she was doing something that kind of made sense. I've seen it talked about in here also.
Basically she set her goal weight ( I think it was 150lbs for her) and then calculated what the calorie range for maintenance was at that weight given her activity level, age etc.
Then that's what she set her daily calorie intake at (it was somewhere around 1700--I'm going to call her next week to see if I'm remembering right) and she ate that or right around that and over time, took her perhaps a year, she got to her goal weight or close to it and has stayed at goal since. At the time I thought it made sense.
I haven't started it myself but am considering giving it a try. Has anyone tried it?
It sounds logical. And a good way to calculate what your calorie intake should be.
0
Replies
-
If you're very patient, and have preternatural patience as you approach your goal weight, it will work.0
-
I believe Alan Argon wrote about that method and @LolBroScience is currently doing that for his cut.0
-
I've heard it before, though not seen anyone actually try it. It would work, but be a lot slower once you got close to your goal weight. The last few pounds would take forever.0
-
I used the same approach for weight gain and worked for me - now maintaining on 3x what I used to eat! Your happiest weight is the weight that you settle on naturally when eating a balanced and sustainable diet that's compatible with your lifestyle, so once you've figured that out (takes time and practice), you will achieve it! Way more sustainable approach than crash dieting.0
-
it works because you're obviously eating less than what would be required for you to maintain at your current weight...but it generally results in a very small deficit which, 1) leaves very little error margin; and 2) will be very slow...so patience and being vigilantly accurate will be crucial. It will be very slow...and will be very, very, very slow as you approach your goal weight.0
-
yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/0 -
It would be much slower... I maintain at 2200. I lost 80 pounds eating 1800 or less in 1.5 years (been maintaining for a year). I'm not going to bother with the math right now but I'm guessing I'd be *maybe* halfway now if I had eaten 2200 the whole time.
Seems very slow to me.0 -
Yes, you can absolutely do that. As you get closer to your goal weight, though, the difference in your weight and your goal weight will mean a very small difference in maintenance calories. For example, a 40 yo 5'6" woman who is lightly active and 150 pounds burns about 1968 calories per day. A 40 yo 5'6" woman who is lightly active and 140 pounds burns about 1907 pounds per day. The difference is around 61 calories, meaning that a pound would take around 57 days to lose. So once you get closer to your goal you might decide to lop another 100 or 200 off what you're eating if you want to speed up your loss a bit.0
-
_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all (26900 cals with 168p, 335c, 75f). Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all. Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than via his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
Butting in to say.... your back is IMPRESSIVE!
0 -
strong_curves wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all. Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than via his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
Butting in to say.... your back is IMPRESSIVE!
Thank you0 -
You should see him from the front!strong_curves wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all. Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than via his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
Butting in to say.... your back is IMPRESSIVE!
;-)
lol
0 -
_benjammin wrote: »
You should see him from the front!strong_curves wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all. Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than via his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
Butting in to say.... your back is IMPRESSIVE!
;-)
lol
so sexy
0 -
Yes, I am doing this now. True the weight loss is slower but I am hoping that 2 positives come from eating this way in addition to the weight loss.
1) Less excessive loose skin from dropping too quickly. I'm older so have far less natural collagen and elastin than someone 1/2 my age. Lots to lose=lots of skin.
2) Train myself to eat at maintenance long term. I can lose weight like a champ. My issue has always been maintaining.0 -
A_benjammin wrote: »
You should see him from the front!strong_curves wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all. Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than via his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
Butting in to say.... your back is IMPRESSIVE!
;-)
lol
Ah hahahaha OMG
That's awesome! 0 -
What I heard recommended is you take your estimated TDEE at maintenance, and cut 5% off that just to give yourself a margin of error. So for me, if my goal weight TDEE at lightly active is 1750, right now I would eat 1660. I put those numbers into this simulator (https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/index.html) and found that after 500 days I would still be 4.5 lbs from "goal." But I'm sure at 134.5 lbs I'd look pretty darn swell looking.0
-
That makes sense. I am still waiting to hear from my friend to see exactly what she did. She's on vacation. I'm being patient. I'm ok with slow as long as it works and I'm not starving.0
-
hello Breez, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that what you have posted is what my dietitian told me to do and it is working for me, plus she showed me what serving portions are suppose to be. I was shocked at how much most people over eat, it catches up to them later in life. I have lost almost 30 pounds and I started this 40 days ago. So your friend is right and it dose work. It is what I call healthy eat and it is NOT dieting!
0 -
_benjammin wrote: »
You should see him from the front!strong_curves wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all. Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than via his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
Butting in to say.... your back is IMPRESSIVE!
;-)
lol
0 -
Cynthiamr2015 wrote: »hello Breez, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that what you have posted is what my dietitian told me to do and it is working for me, plus she showed me what serving portions are suppose to be. I was shocked at how much most people over eat, it catches up to them later in life. I have lost almost 30 pounds and I started this 40 days ago. So your friend is right and it dose work. It is what I call healthy eat and it is NOT dieting!
That's an insane amount to lose in such a short time.
How much weight are you trying to lose altogether?
0 -
_benjammin wrote: »
You should see him from the front!strong_curves wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all. Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than via his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
Butting in to say.... your back is IMPRESSIVE!
;-)
lol
Holy Guacamole! More damn barbell hickeys.
0 -
Thanks for this, that is how I originally set my calories was for the maintenance calories for my target weight. Great to see some backing to the methodLolBroScience wrote: »_benjammin wrote: »yep, Alan Argon's "Lean Muscle Diet" is that method.
Here's a link with FAQ's AA did about the method (with a question regarding women and his answer:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Yup, I'm currently cutting based off of his method. Working pretty well! I'm much leaner and not hungry at all (26900 cals with 168p, 335c, 75f). Although with MFPs pathetic excuse for setting macros in 5% intervals, my protein goal is slightly lower (about 10g) than his method since the add-on I was using isn't functioning anymore. Doesn't really matter all that much though since there is a bit of a buffer.
0 -
debsdoingthis wrote: »Yes, I am doing this now. True the weight loss is slower but I am hoping that 2 positives come from eating this way in addition to the weight loss.
1) Less excessive loose skin from dropping too quickly. I'm older so have far less natural collagen and elastin than someone 1/2 my age. Lots to lose=lots of skin.
2) Train myself to eat at maintenance long term. I can lose weight like a champ. My issue has always been maintaining.
The first thing I noticed today after losing weight for a week or so is that I can see in my face and I don't want loose skin there! I'm nearly 50 and noticing skin changes so the first thing you said is a great consideration. And # 2 is just sensible.
0 -
Cynthiamr2015 wrote: »hello Breez, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that what you have posted is what my dietitian told me to do and it is working for me, plus she showed me what serving portions are suppose to be. I was shocked at how much most people over eat, it catches up to them later in life. I have lost almost 30 pounds and I started this 40 days ago. So your friend is right and it dose work. It is what I call healthy eat and it is NOT dieting!
Your ticker says you are trying to lose 40 and you have lost 26. Unless that 40 is just a first step, you simply cannot lose 26 lbs in 40 days by eating what what would be maintenance for someone 40 lbs (now only 14 lbs) lighter. You've been eating much lower than that.
To give an example, let's say your goal is 130 and you started at 170. Maintenance for a sedentary person of 130 of (I'm making this up) 5'5, age 35 is 1550. Maintenance for a sedentary person of 170 with the same stats is 1765. As you can see even with 40 lbs to go the deficit achieved is less than .5 lb/week.
Works great for people with a whole lot to lose or for a recomp (or who are willing to lose slowly), but it's not going to do what you said. For OP, I tried it as an alternative (compromise) between continuing to lose and a recomp when I first had 5 lb to go and found I just slid into recomp/maintenance. I suspect it would have worked better if I'd started it when I had more to go, though.
(26 lb in 40 is REALLY high and well beyond the recommended levels for any but extremely obese people. I can't see how one could do that without eating quite low--probably lower than recommended.)0 -
About the loose skin. I'm just about 52 and have some loose skin and the highest i've ever weighed is 176 pounds. Its worst on my thighs but also i notice my upper arms are more floppy than they used to be and i have a big of sag under the chin and in my cheeks but those are commonly seen in people my age and don't look like wieghtloss looseness, like the legs.
You cannot avoid loose skin BUT, even for us older people, I understand that over time, the looseness should reduce because the skin regenerates and it will regenerate to our new smaller size. I think its takes 2-3 years for a complete new skin. You could google that.
I think your idea of eating at your proposed TDEE is a good idea. I didn't do that but i've always eaten at a modest deficit and found it to be fine. It doesn't matter if its slow when you are near your goal because you already look and feel fantastic.
At our age, its unlikely you'd care about having a perfect figure like younger people do and we look better with a little more fat on us anyway. I look pretty good at 60kg whereas when i was younger, I wanted to be 55kg and my sister who is my same height is usually this wieght or less. She looks tiny but unnecessarily tiny in my opinion. I do envy her lack of saggy skin though but then she always had good bone structure too.0 -
People have discussed this before. Some like it and others think it's the wrong way, but that goes for almost everything. Lots of people, lots of opinions!
I cross my bridges as I come to them, doing what works now and not what I think might work later. But if you want to try eating your goal calories, go for it.
As for loose skin, I've lost very slowly and have a lot of it. Losing slowly is no guarantee that there won't be loose skin. Not for everyone, anyway. I don't want anyone to be disappointed if they lose slowly and end up with loose skin.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »it works because you're obviously eating less than what would be required for you to maintain at your current weight...but it generally results in a very small deficit which, 1) leaves very little error margin; and 2) will be very slow...so patience and being vigilantly accurate will be crucial. It will be very slow...and will be very, very, very slow as you approach your goal weight.
That depends on how much you have to lose. For me, it was a MASSIVE deficit at first (below bmr according to various calculators), and, of course, as you say, the closer you get to your goal, the smaller your deficit becomes, which you can adjust your cals to make up for, or tighten up measuring and logging.0 -
I did this at first, and it worked *very* well for a while. But then I plateaued (combination of reasons mentioned above: Imprecise portion control, closeness of the maintenance calories for goal weight to maintenance calories for then-current weight as goal got closer, etc.)
Specifics, in case it's helpful: I'm 59 y/o, 5'5" tall, and was already exercising regularly (had been for a dozen years). In mid-April 2015, I started at 183lb. I started trying to eat at maintenance for my (approximate) goal weight, 130, which would be about 1500 calories (TDEE method). This had me losing about 2lb/week, which seemed safe enough given how much overweight I was. By mid-July, I was down around 155, but plateaued for a couple of weeks.
That's when I decided I needed more precision in tracking, joined MFP, and started weighing my food. I also decided that I was too impatient, and would try for more of a deficit, and see how it felt. (Side note: I had laparoscopic gall bladder surgery 7/18, and had to cut activity back to daily walking for a month, but was allowed to do reps to boredom with tiny weights for the final two weeks).
MFP suggested 1200 net, which got me losing about 2lbs/week again initially, and now I'm trying to slow that to 1lb/week by eating back somewhat more of my exercise calories. I think that's working, or close. I'm at 150 now, and seem still to be losing.
Though I was too impatient to stick with the "eat at goal maintenance" strategy, I don't have a particular enforced timeline for further loss, as long as there's continued visible progress. I may adjust my goal weight as my initial provisional goal gets closer, depending on how I feel.0 -
In retrospect, I think that is effectively what I did, and yeah it worked!0
-
Thanks for all the input. I'm not particularly concerned about loose skin though it's interesting about it getting used to your new size over time. I'm basically eating around 1500 calories. I find, I am satisfied with somewhere between 1500 and 1700 calories and I lose weight at this. I am thinking perhaps instead of a goal weight I should just eat this until I plateau and when I do, that's where I should stay for a while then revisit activity/caloric intake. Unless I stop losing tomorrow of course but so far I'm definitely on a downward path. I'm in no hurry. I really want this one to be THE time it works and I feel that the only way is to take the steps but not go crazy obsessive. I've had a really good week or so since I started back at MFP. I am enjoying the process and the conversations very much. Thank you everybody.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions