How to Find Your Maintenance Calorie Level

24

Replies

  • StarBrightStarBright
    StarBrightStarBright Posts: 97 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    StarBrightStarBright wrote: »
    I found that I just stopped losing. I'm still 1-2 pounds away from goal weight and have been for months, so I'm at maintenance for the weight I'm at.

    I'm actually still set to lose .5 a week in MFP but have been at the same weight for about 6 months so this is clearly my maintenance level.

    I think once you get close enough to goal (and if you are relatively short and at a healthy weight) maintenance is often not giving you as many calories as you hope you are going to get :)

    For what it's worth, I had something similar happen a couple of years ago. I had an original goal weight of 125 lbs and I hit that and kept right on going, to about 123; then, with no other changes, I just sort of stopped losing. I stuck there for quite a while, several months, and also decided - well this must be my actual maintenance number, and since I'm a couple pounds below my goal weight - I will officially declare myself "in maintenance". I changed my status, but not my calorie goal, and settled into maintenance. Funny thing was, a few weeks later, I started losing again, really slowly, 0.25-0.5 lb/week. I ended up losing another 5 lbs and my new "maintenance" number is 118 lbs (with a 2 lb range on either side of it). I figured out that back when I felt like I was still actively losing, I mentally had a buffer in my mind so going over cals a day or two a week wasn't a big deal. When I accepted "maintenance" even though nothing else changed, I no longer felt like I had a buffer so I was more diligent about tracking my weekly intake to make sure I didn't go over my numbers. By doing that, even subconsciously, I tightened things up and started losing again.

    I am one of those fortunate people for whom my maintenance number is higher than calculators would suggest - I'm 5'2 and 118 and my TDEE according to FitBit and results is about 2100-2200 (lower this winter but should go up when weather is warmer and I'm more active again).

    Good to know - that is super interesting! I don't generally track on weekends to give myself a break but I wonder if I also was a stickler on Saturdays and Sundays if I would see movement again.

    I do think I'm one of those people on the low side of the calculators (5'5.5", 142 and I eat between 1400 and 1500 a day - and I'm pretty consistent with tracking and honesty).

  • momofosho2015
    momofosho2015 Posts: 3 Member
    Thank you! Saving :)
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    Bumping this, having just seen it linked. Awesome info for new maintainers.
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 5,184 Member
    I sent a note to have this stickied but for some reason I guess the powers that be decided that it was not "worthy". So bizarre. Bumping
  • DamienAngelica
    DamienAngelica Posts: 281 Member
    This is such good information. Thank you, Ann!

    And I agree; it should definitely be stickied.
  • SummerSkier
    SummerSkier Posts: 5,184 Member
    finally it is STICKIED!!! of course no one bothers to read those before jumping in right? ;)
  • Pastaprincess1978
    Pastaprincess1978 Posts: 371 Member
    lightenup2016 wrote: »
    My calculated maintenance calories is higher than I would have expected. I have several months of data from 2016, and also from the last 6 weeks. From my calculations, I get somewhere between 2165-2250 to maintain, before exercise. I'm female, 44, height 5'6", and currently 147-ish pounds. I'm in the middle of a diet break right now while my mom is visiting, and I upped my avg calories from 1550 to 1850 (had thought maintenance was closer to this), but I've gone over each day due to PMS, so I'm averaging more like 2050 the past several days. I'll be curious to see what my weight is like after TOM is gone, and the diet break is over. But I guess a week and a half is hard to tell for maintenance?

    ETA: Thank you AnnPT77 for the breakdown! I pretty much knew how to get the numbers, but was confused on whether or not to use net calories for the final calculation.

    Twins - I am 148 (want to be 130 though) and 5' 6" - you must be very active prior to exercise?
  • envscuba
    envscuba Posts: 14 Member
    Please Help I'm going exercise crazy!

    I recently hit my weight loss goal and want to shift into maintaining by reducing exercise time. I currently mainly walk, minimum 14 miles per day which takes me about 4 hours give or take. I have been trying to up the intensity of my exercise the past few weeks. Adjustments include doing a couch to 5k program 3x per week, DDP Yoga 2x per week, 8 minutes of sit-ups per day, and 2-3 days of 10 minute weight lifting sessions mostly arms, upper body and core. Here are my weekly calorie deficient and weight numbers some of which were still while I was losing, I hit my goal the week of 5/21/18.

    4/9/18 -10,568 Calories 5.80 pound Lost
    4/16/18 -9,550 Calories 4.20 Pound Lost
    4/23/18 -8,742 Calories 1.80 Pound Gain
    4/30/18 -10,786 Calories 2.80 Pound Lost
    5/7/18 -10,865 Calories 0.80 Pound Lost
    5/14/18 -8,673 Calories 3.00 Pound Lost
    5/21/18 -5,063 Calories 0.60 Pound Lost
    5/28/18 -6,502 Calories 1.80 Pound Gain
    6/4/18 -10,605 Calories 1.00 Pound Lost

    I have nearly constant cravings for various types of food (mostly the bad stuff) which is also driving me crazy. I'm afraid that cutting back to a more realistic 1 to 2 hours of exercise time per day would send my weight skyrocketing especially if I give in to some of those cravings. I have hypothyroidism which also may reduce my metabolic rate.

    Any advise as to how to reduce exercise, reduce cravings and eat to maintain are welcome.

    Thank you,
  • envscuba
    envscuba Posts: 14 Member
    I am exercising this much because this is the only way I'm seeing results on the scale and I am afraid to cut back or stop.

    I've lost 118 pounds since June 2015. From June 2015 to September 2017 I lost 52 pounds with only walking, no large change in diet. The remainder was lost since then when I started using MyFitnessPal to track calories. During this time (Sept 2015 to present) I have gradually increased my walking distance to the 14 miles per day minimum.

    Pasta, cakes, candy, fries, all the high calorie stuff.

    I just ran my numbers since the beginning of the year, I'm averaging a 6,108 calorie deficit to lose one pound. Which is nearly double the commonly used 3500 calorie mark.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    envscuba wrote: »
    I am exercising this much because this is the only way I'm seeing results on the scale and I am afraid to cut back or stop.

    I've lost 118 pounds since June 2015. From June 2015 to September 2017 I lost 52 pounds with only walking, no large change in diet. The remainder was lost since then when I started using MyFitnessPal to track calories. During this time (Sept 2015 to present) I have gradually increased my walking distance to the 14 miles per day minimum.

    Pasta, cakes, candy, fries, all the high calorie stuff.

    I just ran my numbers since the beginning of the year, I'm averaging a 6,108 calorie deficit to lose one pound. Which is nearly double the commonly used 3500 calorie mark.

    More likely, you're overestimating exercise calories.

    Are you using MFP calculation for walking or

    .57* weight* mileage?
    https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20843760/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »

    More likely, you're overestimating exercise calories.

    Are you using MFP calculation for walking or

    .57* weight* mileage?
    https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20843760/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/

    Note that this formula provides the GROSS calorie burn from walking. That is, the result will include calories you would have burned even if you had not taken a walk.

    The formula for the NET calorie burn (the extra burn resulting directly from your walk and thus the amount you can eat back) is 0.3*weight*mileage.

    Similarly, running will burn 0.72*weight*mileage on a gross basis and 0.63*weight*mileage on a net basis.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »

    More likely, you're overestimating exercise calories.

    Are you using MFP calculation for walking or

    .57* weight* mileage?
    https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20843760/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/

    Note that this formula provides the GROSS calorie burn from walking. That is, the result will include calories you would have burned even if you had not taken a walk.

    The formula for the NET calorie burn (the extra burn resulting directly from your walk and thus the amount you can eat back) is 0.3*weight*mileage.

    Similarly, running will burn 0.72*weight*mileage on a gross basis and 0.63*weight*mileage on a net basis.

    Thanks. And a good point. MFP generally shows 25-40% over Gross.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »

    More likely, you're overestimating exercise calories.

    Are you using MFP calculation for walking or

    .57* weight* mileage?
    https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20843760/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/

    Note that this formula provides the GROSS calorie burn from walking. That is, the result will include calories you would have burned even if you had not taken a walk.

    The formula for the NET calorie burn (the extra burn resulting directly from your walk and thus the amount you can eat back) is 0.3*weight*mileage.

    Similarly, running will burn 0.72*weight*mileage on a gross basis and 0.63*weight*mileage on a net basis.

    Thanks. And a good point. MFP generally shows 25-40% over Gross.

    Because it uses NEAT to calculate.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »

    More likely, you're overestimating exercise calories.

    Are you using MFP calculation for walking or

    .57* weight* mileage?
    https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20843760/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/

    Note that this formula provides the GROSS calorie burn from walking. That is, the result will include calories you would have burned even if you had not taken a walk.

    The formula for the NET calorie burn (the extra burn resulting directly from your walk and thus the amount you can eat back) is 0.3*weight*mileage.

    Similarly, running will burn 0.72*weight*mileage on a gross basis and 0.63*weight*mileage on a net basis.

    Thanks. And a good point. MFP generally shows 25-40% over Gross.

    Because it uses NEAT to calculate.

    NO, because it uses inaccurate formulas.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Not really inaccurate - but trying to apply a single value to a range is one potential inaccuracy.
    The walking speed may be singular, but the range is up to the next value, IIRC from past checking, the burn value is middle of that range.

    It's actually decently accurate (improved would be using newer formula's that use gender/height in formula), instead of established MET values.

    The bigger problem is it's giving a calorie burn for a block of time, just like any other database, but used differently.

    MFP already expected you to burn a certain number of calories for that block of time - BMR x 1.25, 1.4, ect.

    So for a low calorie burner like walking, a decent amount of those calories is already accounted for.

    The exercise database could easily be made to only add on what is truly above and beyond what they already accounted for you burning.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    For example - my BMR 1705 x my realistic Sedentary 1.25 = 2131 daily maintenance = 89 cal/hr accounted for.

    If I walk 3mph for 60 min - 280 would be given by MFP (294 would be given by non-MET formula considered more accurate BTW).

    But only 280-89 = 191 would be burned above and beyond what MFP already was expecting.
    So 89/hr overage. Well ah be - almost 50%.

    If I logged a lot of walking time, the overage gets worse obviously. If I go slower, worse effect.
  • envscuba
    envscuba Posts: 14 Member
    I use Fitbit for the exercise calories tracking and have MFP linked to Fitbit so MFP updates Fitbit with my food. I just find MFP easier to track calories in and think Fitbit is a tad more accurate for exercise tracking, but I could be wrong, that is why I am here.

    Also these formulas are most likely based on level walking how do you account for hills which I do a lot of, sometimes near the equivalent of 75 fights according to my iPhone?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    envscuba wrote: »
    I use Fitbit for the exercise calories tracking and have MFP linked to Fitbit so MFP updates Fitbit with my food. I just find MFP easier to track calories in and think Fitbit is a tad more accurate for exercise tracking, but I could be wrong, that is why I am here.

    Also these formulas are most likely based on level walking how do you account for hills which I do a lot of, sometimes near the equivalent of 75 fights according to my iPhone?

    That is true, inclines are not accounted for, even by Fitbit.
    They are measuring impacts to calculate distance of that step, and uphill leads to less impact so it would appear less distance and less calories - and that's opposite.
    Downhill leads to more impact and increased distance and more calories than it's really doing, gravity assist does help a bit.
    And down and up never balance each other out.

    But Fitbit would be better because it sees that difference in level, barring massive amounts of up and down.
    Some things are still best to manually log, because neither step-based calories nor HR-based calories is accurate - like lifting, swimming of course, circuit training, similar type things.

    The flights that Fitbit may see are considered not accurate and therefore not used in calculations.
  • envscuba
    envscuba Posts: 14 Member
    So if I wanted to cut back to 10 miles per day at my the middle of my target weight range of 150 to 164 I'd need to be eating 1900 calories per day, BMR = 1427, plus 10*157*.3?
  • envscuba
    envscuba Posts: 14 Member
    What is the best way to estimate calorie burn for other activities such as cycling, swimming, weight lifting, and yoga?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    envscuba wrote: »
    What is the best way to estimate calorie burn for other activities such as cycling, swimming, weight lifting, and yoga?

    Accurate database entry. They are based on studies measuring people doing the workouts - you just have to know how intense were they.
    Really doing the workout as described.

    Like Spinning in the database is hardly descriptive - not a good one to use. But it was probably intense as most spinning classes are. But was the 60 min with 5 min slow warmup & cooldown, and 5 min stretching, so really only 45 min of actually Spinning?

    Biking outdoors though, if you really do the stated speed on average, and probably round down in the range, not up. Though again, if a ton of hills or bad headwind - the avg is low, but the burn is higher. There is never enough balance between up/down, head/tail, that the avg is actually higher burn than given.

    Swimming when ranges are given is good.

    Lifting is avg routine of 4-15 reps in 2-5 sets, with 2-4 min rests.
    Circuit training is the 15-20 reps, up to 1 min rests.
    So a difference. But smaller burn anyway, so not so bad.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    The only way I know of to do it completely accurately is complex algebra on history, but even that would assume that the 2 hours of paddling last Saturday had the same burn per hour as the three hours of paddling on Thursday (the answer is no, btw) and it would depend on getting an accurate weight for the beginning and end of the period use to assess. What actually happens is you notice your weight trending up or down and you adjust your base calories or start computing burn differently to compensate. All this stuff can never do more than get you pretty close so that you can accept the numbers for longer before you have to adjust for a trend up or down.

Categories