1400accurate maintenance?

2»

Replies

  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    Sammylou40s wrote: »
    I’m so jealous of some of the figures I’m reading here!
    I’m female 5’6”. Currently 136lbs. 49 and going through menopause. ( does anyone know if that affects weight loss?)
    My maintenance is set by mfp at 1570. I’m sedentary due to ill health
    But it’s clearly too much.
    I’ve lost 75lbs from jan 18 to July 18 and have been maintaining since then. But it’s creeping up slightly so I want to get back in control. I’ve only gained 4lbs but have to put a stop to it before it’s more. I’ll drop back to 1200 until it’s gone but the figures others are giving of 2000 and sedentary are mind boggling to me. I know we’re all different but how can it be so varied?
    If anyone can suggest what I may be doing wrong please let me know.
    Is it carbs, sugar, fat for example that’s hindering me?
    I’m not miserable at all on 1500 but as it’s too much then I need to make some changes somewhere to keep it off.
    Thank you!!

    have you realculated your calorie goals since you lost the 75 lbs? if not you need to go back and put your stats in again. carbs/sugar or fat is not hindering you unless its putting you into maintenance calories. if you havent recalculated for your new weight thats most likely the issue. you cant eat the same amount of calories you did when you were heavier. also if you have been eating at a deficit for any length of time you may want a diet break for a week or two and eat maintenance calories,or a few weeks if needed then resume eating in a deficit.
  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,452 Member
    edited January 2019
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    nxd10 wrote: »
    Every time we have this discussion numbers bounce around by 1000 calories. I think people log differently and their bodies are different and what they count - raw or net - differs. Bottom line: I think you need to start with what it tells you, log consistently, and weigh. If you loose weight add calories. If you gain weight, drop them. That's what I had to do.

    Frankly you can't damage your body that quickly - as in in a few weeks. You should be able to tell if you're hungry or feeling bad or losing weight and adjust your food intake. You have to trust your body and your data.

    I agree, but I think a great reason why the reported ranges are so different is that some people are maintaining a higher weight. Some people comment that they are short females maintaining close to 3000 calories, but then I realize that their goal weight is on the high end of normal or overweight. Taller people need to be heavier, and one tall person's BMR can be a lighter petite's TDEE.

    not always true. the more active a person is the more they can eat in many circumstances.Im 5'6 1/2 and my BMR is a lot lower than others of my height and activity level. its even lower than what any calculator even mfp gives me. taller people dont need to be heavier per se. they may be able to weigh a bit more than say someone several inches shorter than they are but doesnt mean its a healthy weight.

    so ones person maintenance can differ due to activity levels.many women around my age and height can eat more than I can to maintain.even when I was very active I could not eat a lot. my maintenance is 1900 without exercise and around 2200 with exercise and thats burning wuite a bit of calories. even if I burn 3000 calories(including my BMR) I still cant eat more than 2200 or I gain weight. I dont know if its due to my health issue or not but thats how it works for me.

    I dont know if thats a rare thing or not but there are many women on here who are shorter than me who can eat more than I can.

    Hmm. I know BMI isn't the end all be all, but it's still a decent reference. It is not false that a tall person needs to be heavier; a 130 lb person is overweight at 4'11" but underweight at 5'11".
    Oh yes. I do know just how much activity affects TDEE. I'd be a miserable 5'2" lady on my sedentary 1400-1500 calories, but I'm active and eat around 2000 calories to keep between 110-120 lbs. I'm basing my statements from what I've read online and on a thread I made almost a year ago:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10641330/light-petites-maintaining-on-2000-calories#latest

    It's not unusual to be above 2000 calories, but people consistently pushing 3000 calories tend to be heavier.

    many who can eat around 3000 calories may also have a higher amount of muscle as well. since musle burns more calories at rest(not much but every little bit helps) . the thing with BMI is its very outdated and bodybuilders or even weight lifters are often classified as overweight according to the BMI im oerweight/obese yet Im wearing smaller clothing and have less fat than I was at 40+ lbs lighter. my blood work is also better than it was all those years ago. you can be overeight and be healthy it happens.

    sure a person 5'11 and only 130 lbs would be underweight according to the BMI and so on. but its possible they could be healthy otherwise .for the longest time my mom was 5'9 1/2 and never weighed more than 140. she was healthy(before she started drinking).she would have been considered underweight by the BMI scale but she had a good bit of muscle and low body fat(from lifting and carrying furniture since my dad worked for a moving company) she was always active and didnt eat a lot but she never lost or gained weight.

    now for me and my heigh and weight(and activity) I should be able to maintain on more than 2200 calories. but nope for me its not that way.heck when I was a kid and 120-140 lbs I know I was eating more than that then, I could eat all day and most were high calorie foods.I could put away a medium pizza for dinner and still have eaten lunch and then some.

    cant do that now of course. but everyone is different and BMI charts anymore should be done away with and they need to find a better guide. you being able to eat 2000 being active is just a little less than me. Im 4 1/2 inches taller and Im finding now that 2200 calories is too much for me even being active. so see how that works? I should be able to eat more being active. but the last 2 months Ive been slowly gaining after maintaining a loss for more than 4 years

    The extra burn of muscle is indeed very real, but exaggerated. This concise, cited article explains the minuscule difference it makes in layman's terms:

    https://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/amp/

    Every extra bit matters to me, and I'd take it lol, but it's not going to make a huge difference between most people (i.e 2000 vs 3000 calorie maintenance). You yourself even acknowledge how tiny the extra boost is, so I don't understand why you included it in your argument for the wide range of calorie intake?

    My views of BMI are in the pro/neutral feelings of it discussed in these two most recent threads on this often debated topic:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10681147/bmi-agree-or-disagree

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10713113/bmi-controversy-️🤬


    Also, I'm not sure how it happens, but I find it odd when people calculate BMI incorrectly. It happens from time to time on MFP. Where did you calculate your mom's BMI? At 5'9 1/2 and 140 lbs, she was light, but not even borderline underweight.
  • Dilvish
    Dilvish Posts: 398 Member
    If you are losing hair then it is likely more than just calories. Typically hair loss stems from poor nutrient intake which is definitely associated with too few calories but it may simply be the type of foods you are eating. Low Iron and Low protein can also be responsible for hair loss as well as too much Vitamin A.

    Since we don't know your activity level, age and weight, it's hard to gauge whether 1400 calories is a maintenance level or not. These factors combined with your height can usually estimate where you should be in terms of calories for maintenance. Again just make sure that you are getting proper nutrition with those calories.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    neldabg wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    nxd10 wrote: »
    Every time we have this discussion numbers bounce around by 1000 calories. I think people log differently and their bodies are different and what they count - raw or net - differs. Bottom line: I think you need to start with what it tells you, log consistently, and weigh. If you loose weight add calories. If you gain weight, drop them. That's what I had to do.

    Frankly you can't damage your body that quickly - as in in a few weeks. You should be able to tell if you're hungry or feeling bad or losing weight and adjust your food intake. You have to trust your body and your data.

    I agree, but I think a great reason why the reported ranges are so different is that some people are maintaining a higher weight. Some people comment that they are short females maintaining close to 3000 calories, but then I realize that their goal weight is on the high end of normal or overweight. Taller people need to be heavier, and one tall person's BMR can be a lighter petite's TDEE.

    not always true. the more active a person is the more they can eat in many circumstances.Im 5'6 1/2 and my BMR is a lot lower than others of my height and activity level. its even lower than what any calculator even mfp gives me. taller people dont need to be heavier per se. they may be able to weigh a bit more than say someone several inches shorter than they are but doesnt mean its a healthy weight.

    so ones person maintenance can differ due to activity levels.many women around my age and height can eat more than I can to maintain.even when I was very active I could not eat a lot. my maintenance is 1900 without exercise and around 2200 with exercise and thats burning wuite a bit of calories. even if I burn 3000 calories(including my BMR) I still cant eat more than 2200 or I gain weight. I dont know if its due to my health issue or not but thats how it works for me.

    I dont know if thats a rare thing or not but there are many women on here who are shorter than me who can eat more than I can.

    Hmm. I know BMI isn't the end all be all, but it's still a decent reference. It is not false that a tall person needs to be heavier; a 130 lb person is overweight at 4'11" but underweight at 5'11".
    Oh yes. I do know just how much activity affects TDEE. I'd be a miserable 5'2" lady on my sedentary 1400-1500 calories, but I'm active and eat around 2000 calories to keep between 110-120 lbs. I'm basing my statements from what I've read online and on a thread I made almost a year ago:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10641330/light-petites-maintaining-on-2000-calories#latest

    It's not unusual to be above 2000 calories, but people consistently pushing 3000 calories tend to be heavier.

    many who can eat around 3000 calories may also have a higher amount of muscle as well. since musle burns more calories at rest(not much but every little bit helps) . the thing with BMI is its very outdated and bodybuilders or even weight lifters are often classified as overweight according to the BMI im oerweight/obese yet Im wearing smaller clothing and have less fat than I was at 40+ lbs lighter. my blood work is also better than it was all those years ago. you can be overeight and be healthy it happens.

    sure a person 5'11 and only 130 lbs would be underweight according to the BMI and so on. but its possible they could be healthy otherwise .for the longest time my mom was 5'9 1/2 and never weighed more than 140. she was healthy(before she started drinking).she would have been considered underweight by the BMI scale but she had a good bit of muscle and low body fat(from lifting and carrying furniture since my dad worked for a moving company) she was always active and didnt eat a lot but she never lost or gained weight.

    now for me and my heigh and weight(and activity) I should be able to maintain on more than 2200 calories. but nope for me its not that way.heck when I was a kid and 120-140 lbs I know I was eating more than that then, I could eat all day and most were high calorie foods.I could put away a medium pizza for dinner and still have eaten lunch and then some.

    cant do that now of course. but everyone is different and BMI charts anymore should be done away with and they need to find a better guide. you being able to eat 2000 being active is just a little less than me. Im 4 1/2 inches taller and Im finding now that 2200 calories is too much for me even being active. so see how that works? I should be able to eat more being active. but the last 2 months Ive been slowly gaining after maintaining a loss for more than 4 years

    The extra burn of muscle is indeed very real, but exaggerated. This concise, cited article explains the minuscule difference it makes in layman's terms:

    https://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/amp/

    Every extra bit matters to me, and I'd take it lol, but it's not going to make a huge difference between most people (i.e 2000 vs 3000 calorie maintenance). You yourself even acknowledge how tiny the extra boost is, so I don't understand why you included it in your argument for the wide range of calorie intake?

    My views of BMI are in the pro/neutral feelings of it discussed in these two most recent threads on this often debated topic:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10681147/bmi-agree-or-disagree

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10713113/bmi-controversy-️🤬


    Also, I'm not sure how it happens, but I find it odd when people calculate BMI incorrectly. It happens from time to time on MFP. Where did you calculate your mom's BMI? At 5'9 1/2 and 140 lbs, she was light, but not even borderline underweight.

    I calculated it awhile back at the drs office because they have a chart there. whether its right or not I dont know. I also said she never weighed more than 140. she was most of the time under than she ranged from 125 -135. 140 was mostly when she was younger before she had kids. she has very low body fat too(but body fat isnt considered on most BMI charts,neither is muscle unfortunately).
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,227 Member
    edited January 2019
    Lovelifeyoulive wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    Possibly. Are you sedentary?

    Basically, samsung health says I burn 1322 and suggests I eat 1300, 1450 if i get 60+excersize mins [i definitely dont] but mfp says 1300 or 1460 [if active] . A dietician said anywhere between 1200-1500 but I'm trying to find a good number because I was losing hair at 1200.

    OK... I see your post! :smile:

    You were eating 1200 and losing hair, right?
    Presumably you were losing weight over a period of time while eating "1200".
    I mean if you were not losing weight then the hair loss would not be related to your caloric consumption, right?

    Now, eating 1200 is "big words".

    Because many people on MFP for some strange, to me, reason, insist on eating less than they should be eating in order to meet their targets.

    And then there's people like me. Who put up a target of "zzzz"; but who almost always eat more than that. Not just because it is a deficit target even though I am maintaining; but also because eating "zzzz" doesn't account for exercise and extra activity calories that also get eaten if you want to meet your targets.

    So your target eating of 1200 is not *necessarily* what you actually did eat. And what we care about is what you actually consumed!

    So.... look back as far as you can and compare how many calories you actually ate to what happened with your weight.

    As an approximation for every lb of trending weight you lost.... add 3500 Cal to your tally of total calories.

    Now total up all the calories, divide by the number of days... there you go: this is how many calories you START to EAT AT in order to approximate maintenance based on your very own data going back, hopefully, a few months.

    Keep at it for a few weeks. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

Categories